acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 439 OF 2009 Meena S. Nagpure. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.. ..Respondents --- Mr. Samir A. Vaidya, for the Petitioner. Smt. A.A. Mane, APP for the State. --- CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED: 24 TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceeding arising out of C.R. No.96 of 2006. 2. Heard the learned counsel. 3. The petitioner was employee as token payment assistant in the post office. Allegedly she embezzled certain amount from the accounts of few account holders. In the departmental inquiry she has been found guilty. She deposited the amount which was misappropriated as per the allegations. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that since she has suffered 1 the minor penalty imposed by the postal departmental and as he has deposited the entire amounts, criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. 5. Mr. Samir Vaidya, the learned Advocate for the petitioner streneously argued that there is no criminal act which has remained to be punished and that criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the court. He seeks to rely in case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in JT 2008 [9] SC 192. In the given case the parties had entered into comprise in civil proceedings by way of written agreement. The dues of the bank were cleared and the parties have withdrawn the allegations against each other. It was noticed by the Apex court that the offence of the accused in the case was to misrepresent the financial status of the company, in order to avail the credit facility to an extent to which the company was not entitled. Thus, there was availment of given credit facility and that the later on cleared. Needless to say that in this peculiar facts of case, the Apex court held that no technicality should come in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings. 6. It is well settled that the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in different spheres. The petitioner cannot claim 2 discharge from criminal proceedings only because she has deposited the entire amount prior to departmental proceedings. In any case, prima facie it appears that the charge temporarily misappropriation may survive on the face of it. 7. Considering tenor of the petition and having regard to defence adopted, I am of the view that the quashing of the criminal case is uncalled for. The petition is therefore dismissed. ( V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. ) 3