M. P. TANASKAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application for quashing the first infor-mation report (Annexure P-1i) and the challan (Annexure P-13) and charge-sheet for prosecution of the applicant under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the 1. PC. The applicant was a Government servant as Village Assis-tant (Panchayat Secretary) in village Nakshi in district Balaghat. A scheme was started known as Rural Housing Programme for the development of construction of residential houses for rural people by providing them subsi-dised loans and grants. The grants were to be sanctioned by the Block Development Officer and payment was made to the applicant which was to be credited in the joint name of the beneficiary and the applicant. An amount of Rs. 4. 000/- was sanctioned which was deposited In the Seva Sahakari Samiti (Bank ). It was ctj 111 found that tbe said amount was Dot properly utilised and forged vouchers were prepared and certificate of the Sarpanch was attached. On these alleg-ations the prosecution was filed. ( 2 ) AGAINST the laid prosecution this application has been filed for quashing the prosecution, on the ground that there is no ground made out for proceeding with the prosecution inasmuch as no specific act or omissions have been specified in the first information report regarding the part played by the applicant. ( 3 ) THE applicant has only done what was required under the rules foi withdrawing the amount and depositing the same In his name alongwith that of the beneficiary. ( 4 ) THE question for consideration is whether the prosecution as initi-ated is absolutely baseless or there is no material for which the accused should be put to trial. The charge-sheet filed discloses that the amount handed over to the applicant even though was withdrawn as per the proce-dure was not spent and false documents were prepared. Ex. P-H is the report lodged by the Block Development Officer. It is alleged that on 26 2. 92 a sum of Rs. 700/-, on 7. 3 92 a sum of Rs. l. OOO/-, on 10. 3 92 a sum of Rs. l. OOO/-, on 25 3 92 a sum of Rs. 1. 300/- and on 4. 7. 92 a sum of Rs. 500/- was given to the applicant: It is alleged that only Rs. 1. 500/- were spent towards the construction and most of the amount was misused. l. OOO/-, on 10. 3 92 a sum of Rs. l. OOO/-, on 25 3 92 a sum of Rs. 1. 300/- and on 4. 7. 92 a sum of Rs. 500/- was given to the applicant: It is alleged that only Rs. 1. 500/- were spent towards the construction and most of the amount was misused. ( 5 ) IT is further alleged that a false report was submited in respect of the said amount to which the applicant was also a signatory. ( 6 ) PRIMA-FDCIC there appears to be enough evidence for which the prosecution can be launched. The statements of witnesses which have been tiled alongwith the report disclose that the Pancbayat Secretary, /. e. the applicant alongwith Babulal God did not utilise the amount towards cons-truction of house- It is not necessary to go in details or appreciate the evidence so as to see whether the applicant can be convicted or not. The only requirement at this stage is to see that the prosecution is not frivolous. There are allegations which require scrutiny by the Court. ( 7 ) THE counsel for the applicant relies on Bhaskar Chattoraj v. State of west Bengal (AIR 1991 SC 137) In that case there was no material to connect the appellant with the offence of criminal trespass. In that view the charge was quashed It is not so in this case In State o* U. P. v. R. K. Srivastava ( AIR 1989 SC 2222 ) the first information report on Us face value did not constitute any offence and as such the Court quashed the proceedings. The counsel for the applicant also relied on Punjab National Bank v. Surendra prasadsinha ( AIR 1992 SC 1815 ) That was a case under Section 409, 109 and 114, I. P. C. and U was said that before issuing process the Court should apply its mind and should not act mechanically on the basis of complaint filed as vendetta to harass persons. All these cases have no application in the present case. The case relevant for the purpose is State offfaryanav. Ch. All these cases have no application in the present case. The case relevant for the purpose is State offfaryanav. Ch. Bhajanlal (AIR 1992 SC 237) wherein principles for exercise of jurisdiction have been stated thus : " (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. Where the un con trover ted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without any order of a magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficcacious redress for the grievance of the party. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons given above it is found that none of the tests laid down in Ch Bhajanlal's case (supra) apply in the Instant case. The application is dismissed. Application dismissed .