JUDGEMENT Akhilesh Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. None appeared on behalf of learned counsel for the complainant informant in spite of due service of notice at earlier stage. 2. Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the solitary petitioner named accused in Barun P.S. Case No. 192/1999 instituted on the basis of Complaint Case No. 980/1999 filed by opposite party no. 2 Ram Ashish Ram son of Kalpu Ram, alleging therein that the petitioner being a Block Development Officer, Barun, committed some irregularities in Indira Awas Yojana Nos. 22, 24 and 28 of 1998-99 and Rs. 54,000/- have been withdrawn with the help of subordinate employees without any work done. 4. As it appears from Annexures-2 and 4 that at the instance of petitioner Barun P.S. Case No. 187/1999 were instituted on 19.12.1999 against the persons involved with the aforesaid schemes as he during inquiry found some extra withdrawal of money against the work done and simultaneously by filing supplementary affidavits, it is brought into notice that in fact the complainant informant was interested in getting some benefits of Indira Awas Yojana awarded in favour of his father Kalpu Ram and son Sikandar Prasad, besides a few more for which he filed an application before the Collector of Aurangabad, which was endorsed to the petitioner who on 13.5.1999 ordered for inquiry and report and as submitted since opposite party no. 2 could not succeed in getting the benefits for the persons prayed for. He got the complaint petition filed on 14.12.1999 against the petitioner on the basis whereof against the petitioner Barun P.S. Case No. 192/1999 was instituted. 5. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet in all the three cases in between with respect to the money advanced and lying due in connection with scheme nos. 22, 24, and 28 of 1998-99, certificate case no. 2/2002-03 was initiated against the persons concerned including the petitioner here, wherein on the basis of subsequent report of Block Development Officer, Barun, regarding work done and cash deposits by accused in the cases instituted at the instance of petitioner entire money was recovered on the basis thereof proceeding of certificate case was dropped. 6. 2/2002-03 was initiated against the persons concerned including the petitioner here, wherein on the basis of subsequent report of Block Development Officer, Barun, regarding work done and cash deposits by accused in the cases instituted at the instance of petitioner entire money was recovered on the basis thereof proceeding of certificate case was dropped. 6. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that since the complainant informant could not be abilged and the petitioner himself finding some irregularities got two cases instituted against the persons concerned, the opposite party no. 2 filed case against the petitioner alone in order to put pressure upon him so instant case must not proceed. He further submitted that petitioner is a retired and ailing person residing at a sufficient distance may suffer a lot if proceeding is permitted to continue. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that all such aspects may be considered before the trial court at the time of hearing on the point of charge. 7. The materials before this court by way of Annexure-14, the application filed by opposite party no. 2 praying for allotment of Indira Awas Yojana for as many as nine persons including his own son and father and subsequent filing of the complaint case goes to show that intention of the opposite party no. 2 was nothing but put hindrance in the official discharge of the duty by petitioner and Government official who himself finding some irregularities on inquiry got two cases instituted against the persons who allegedly though earlier got benefits of allotment of money but did not construct the houses as per requirement. 8. In face of the above, if instant case against the petitioner instituted at the instance of a stranger who had earlier developed some grudge against an official if permitted to continue to proceed providing ways to satisfy personal vendetta shall nothing but wastage of precious judicial time and against all cannons of law. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances, impugned order taking cognizance and the case against the petitioner are hereby quashed and this application stands allowed.