1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2486 OF 2010 1. Mahesh s/o Vinayakrao Take, Age 31 years, Occu. Agriculturist, President of Bharat Nirman Village Water Supply, President of Chikalthana (Khu), Tal.Sailu, district Parbhani. 2. Mrs. Nirmala w/o Sampatrao Rathod, Age: 32 years, Occu. Household & Secretary of Bharat Nirman Village Water Supply, Secretary of Chikalthana (Khu), Tal. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani. ...APPLICANTS (Orig.Acc.No.1 & 2) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr.P.S.Paranjape, Adv., for the applicants. Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:23/2/2011 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard. The applicants, Chairman and Secretary, under the Scheme of Bharat Nirman Water Supply, for the village Chikalthana (Khu), 2 taluka Sailu, Dist. Parbhani, for the year 2009, challenge lodging of FIR vide Crime No.56/2010, at Sailu Police Station for the offenses under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Learned Counsel for the accused/applicants submits, the conduct of the complainant ( B.D.O.) is not free from doubt. In order to save his skin, being so hauled up by superior authorities / the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani ( by letter dt. 31.3.2010), the Block Development Officer ( B.D.O.) has hurriedly lodged FIR on 5th April, 2010. Learned Counsel submits, having lodged FIR against four persons i.e. petitioner no.1, petitioner no.2 and two Government officials, there was no occasion or reason for the complainant (B.D.O.) to inform, by his letter dt. 6.4.2010, to drop the prosecution against two Government officials, namely, Deputy Engineer Chimanchol and Technical Advisor/Service Provider Ghare. 3. Learned A.P.P. has pointed from the investigation papers to statement of the witnesses the magnitude of embezzlement. The owner of Vyasa Traders was allegedly paid amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards purchase of cement and iron under a cheque, however, no such cement or 3 iron was brought at site nor work was done. A person, purportedly, dug bore-well; he was paid Rs.50,000/- by cheque, however, in the muster, the entry is for payment of Rs.7,000/- per bore while the person drilling informs that the petitioners had two bores for which Rs.35,000/- was the expense. He has refunded Rs.15,000/- to the petitioners in the capacity as President and Secretary. The persons who dug the well were allegedly paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by two cheques, however, in the official note the work that has been done was to the tune of Rs. 1,40,375/-. This much amount also could not be released in the manner it was so done. The investigator also pointed that two Government officials did not discharge their obligation to have a check and balance at the material time to ensure disbursement of payment in phases. The FIR depicts that an amount of Rs.8,15,000/- was released, however, the work that has been carried was only to the extent of Rs.2,02,375/- thus prima facie difference/misappropriation to the tune of Rs.6,12,625/- is reflected. 4. Taking these aspects into consideration, contention of the learned Counsel that the complainant has adopted an innocuous way of picking and choosing the applicants only and dropping Government officials, even if accepted, however, the responsibility that has been vested 4 to the applicants herein will not be diluted. Even if prayed for dropping action against two officers, the investigation has to take its independent recourse. Prima facie, there is sufficient material against the accused/ applicants. Nothing to suggest that applicants are roped to en-cash and encounter other feuds or dispute. Hence, no question to quash the proceedings. The application lacks merit, dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/2486-10crapl