JUDGMENT 1. JUDGEMENT 2. N.N. Mathur, J. - By way of instant revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has Challenged the order dated 30th October, 2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar framing charge against him for offences under Section 408 & 420 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Brij Kishore Sharma the Inspector Cooperative Societies, Anupgarh filed a complaint in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar to the effect that while the petitioner herein was functioning as Manager, 15 PTD Gram Sahakari Samiti Ltd., as per the audit report of the year 1984-85, he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2045/-. It is alleged that the petitioner herein received a sum of Rs. 2045/- from one Kuldeep Singh a member of 15 PTD Gram Sahakari Samiti Ltd. and executed a receipt on a plain paper but the said amount was never entered in the record of the society. The complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. A FIR was registered at the Police Station, Raisingh Nagar against the petitioner for offence under Section 408 IPC. On a charge-sheet being filed the petitioner is facing trial for offence under Sections 408, 420 IPC. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the alleged incident is of the period 1980 to 1982 i.e. more than 22 years old. The petitioner had left the job as back as in the year 1986. During the departmental enquiry the petitioner had deposited the said amount in the year 1997. He has also brought to my notice a Circular dated 27th June, 1986 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur to the effect that if any amount so misappropriated along with the interest has been deposited, no FIR should be lodged against that person and if the FIR has been lodged the same should be withdrawn. Thus, in these circumstances, it is not expedient in the interest of justice to proceed with the stale case. On the other hand the petition is being opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered the rival contentions and perused the relevant record I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed. The alleged misappropriation is of more than 22 years old. The amount has been deposited. On the other hand the petition is being opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered the rival contentions and perused the relevant record I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed. The alleged misappropriation is of more than 22 years old. The amount has been deposited. There has been policy of the department not to take up such matters to the police and to settle them within the department itself. The relevant Circular is extracted as follows:- " nh xaxkuxj dsUnzh; lgdkjh cSad fyfeVsM] Jhxaxkuxj dzekad % 31876&77@11-8-87 fnukad lgk;d lgdkjh cSad fyfeVsM dsUnzh; lgdkjh cSad fyfeVsM 'kk[kk vuwix<+A fo"k;& ewy/ku ls vf/kd C;kt dh jkf'k lekiu dschusV Mhlhtu la[;k 142@83 fnukad 13-7-83 ,oa 54@84 fnukad 21&4&84 dh fdz;kfUofr ckcrA lgdkjh foHkkx jktLFkku ds i= dzekad ,Q&21 ( 24 ) d`f"k&4@dks"k@77 fnukad 20-5-86 ,oa jftLV~kj egksn; lgdkjh lfefr;kWa jktLFkku] t;qij ds vkns'k dzekad Qk0 15 ( 6 ) jkfojk@cSad&2@76 ikVZ 3 fnukad 27-6-86 ds funsZ'kkuqlkj jktLFkku ea=h e.My }kjk fy, x, fu.kZ; la[;k 142@83 fnukad 13-7-83 dh fdz;kfUofr gsrq lgdkjh lfefr;ksa ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa }kjk lfefr esa fd, x;s nq:i;ksx ,oa xcu ds ekeyksa esa fuf.kZr jkf'k e; C;kt ds ;fn nks"kh O;fDr }kjk tek djk nh tkrh gS rks mlds fo:) dksbZ iqfyl dk;Zokgh ugha dh tkosxh rFkk ;fn dksbZ eqdnek ntZ gks x;k gS rks mls okfil fy;k tkosA jkT; ea=h e.My ds fu.kZ;kuqlkj bl fu.kZ; dh ikyuk gsrq izR;sd & izR;sd [k.M esa ,d Ldzhfuax desVh dk xBu fuEu izdkj fd;k x;k gS tks izR;sd ,sls xcu ds ekeyksa dh tkWap dj mlds xq.knks"k ds vk/kkj ij fu.kZ; ysdj [k.M ds leLr ekeyksa dh fjiksVZ ekg ds vUnj&vUnj izLrqr djsaxsA 1- la;qDr jftLV~kj] lgdkjh lfefr;kWa] v/;{kA 2- jhtuy vkWfMVj] lnL; 3- lEcfU/kr {ks=h; lgk;d jftLV~kj] dUlhuxjA mDr vkns'kksa dh fdz;kfUofr esa cSad ds lapkyd e.My dh cSBd fnukad 19-4-89 esa izLrko la[;k 24 ( 8 ) ikfjr dj ,sls ekeys ftuesa jkf'k e; C;kt tek gks xbZ gks] rks ekeyksa ds fuLrkj.k dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA vr% vkidks 'kk[kk esa ;fn ,sls dksbZ ---- gks ftuesa lEcfU/kr jkf'k tek djokuk pkgrk gks rks e; fVIi.kh viuh fjiksVZ fHktokosaA rkfd dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsA bls loksZPp izkFkfedrk nsosaA lgh@& 11@8 vf/k'kk"kh@vf/kdkjh " 5. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that in order to secure ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court it is expedient to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 6. Consequently. the petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner being Cr. Case No. 351/98 (State v. Manohar Lal ) pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar stand quashed and set aside.Petition Allowed - Proceedings Quashed. *******