{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.360 OF 2010 Haribhau s/o Bapurao Kulkarni APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.U.B.Bilolikar, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 23rd February 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard. Issue notice to respondent No.1 only. Learned APP accepts the notice. 2. This is an application, u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by which the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR in CR No.102/2009 registered at Loha police station for an offence punishable u/s 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the FIR. {2} 4. It appears that the said offence is registered against the present applicant on the complaint of Krishna Enlolu, Assistant Engineer, MSEDCL, Loha. Perusal of the complaint discloses that the applicant is a retired employee of the erstwhile MESB. It is alleged that a contract to recover the electricity bills and to deposit the same with the MSEDCL was given to the society run by the applicant. It is further alleged that the during the period May 2008 to October 2009 total amount of Rs.85,86,445/- was collected by the applicant from the customers, however deposited only Rs.30,62,945/- with the MSEDCL and thus defalcated an amount of Rs.55,23,500/-. 5. According to learned counsel for the applicant the sub contractor is responsible for depositing the difference amount. It is also urged that later on the amount of difference has been deposited by the applicant / society. However, the fact remains that the amount is huge i.e. in the sum of Rs.55,23,500/- and if the said amount was not collected by the applicant, as alleged, then what was the necessity to deposit such a huge amount. From the actions of the applicant the only inference can be drawn that the amount was collected by the applicant, however later on deposited the same, which amounts to temporary misappropriation. The accusation against the applicant is offence u/s 409 of the IPC, i.e. misappropriation of the funds entrusted which are used for personal purpose. In the premise, no case is made out even to {3} issue notice to respondent No.2. Prima facie case is made out against the applicant and hence the application, which is sans merits stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln360-10