1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.76/2009 (Dasu s/o Limba Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.V.Mundhe, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. P.M.Shinde, A.P.P., for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. H.V.patil, Adv., for respondent no.3. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 14/8/2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel. 2. Quashment of FIR vide Crime No.3045/2008, dt.3.12.2008, registered at Gangakhed Police Station against the applicant for an offence under Sections &, 12, 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is sought by the accused/applicant, a Talathi. 3. At this stage of the matter, the record indicates that it was Santosh Paike, the 2 complainant, who has allegedly demanded certain amount by the accused, being Talathi, for effecting panchnama for crop and estimation of loss pursuant to Government policy. It was in pursuance thereto report with the Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.) authorities was lodged making pre-trap arrangement and in the post trap, an amount of Rs.600/- was accepted by Pawar, employee of the present accused/applicant for and on behalf of the accused/applicant. The defence of the accused/applicant is, he has no concern with such payment and receipt by Pawar from Santosh Paike. At this stage of the matter, there being prima facie indication against the accused/applicant, it cannot be said that the prosecution is frivolous or it is only activated with any malice to implicate the accused/applicant. 4. The powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. need to be exercised sparingly and in cases 3 where there is apparent abuse of process. No such eventuality. Application rejected. . The observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/76-09crapl