JUDGMENT K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, heard finally. 2. The writ petitioners question prosecution vide crime No. 146 of 2012, registered at Chalisgaon police station at the instance of respondent No. 3 Yogesh. Learned Senior Counsel extensively dealt with earlier history of controversies related to petitioners with a senior police Officer in Jalgaon district, which even led petitioners prosecuting said senior Police Officer with allegations of extortion, and even rejection of bail. This was, to impress us, that initiation of proceeding by respondent No. 3 Yogesh is an arithmetical effort of the said senior police officer then operating in the area. Learned Senior Counsel says, Yogesh, in past also was instigated by said police officer and he initiated proceeding vide C.R. No. 45 of 2011, registered on 17.2.2011, wherein charge sheet is filed, which is pending. 3. We are not influenced, at this stage to accept that impugn F.I.R. is a result of influence by Police Officer on personal agenda. 4. The questioned F.I.R. vide C.R. No. 146 of 2012, precisely proceeds with allegations of false preparation of record concerning one Dr. Jadeja for the period from 2005 onwards, inspite of the fact that said Dr. Jadeja was not in service with petitioners institution. Dr. Jadeja was shown as professor without any attendance with the institution. The record illustrates, inspite of efforts made by the investigator, Dr. Jadeja could not be located nor his address was provided. It is subsequently revealed that Dr. Jadeja expired on 14.5.2012. The second limb of allegations in the F.I.R. was that without any approval and arrangement, claim for scholarship of students belonging to scheduled caste/scheduled tribes was moved to Government and got approved, sanctioned, such funds are used by the petitioners (accused). Respondent Yogesh has further stated as to how the members in the committee of Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) coordinated themselves with the petitioners. 5. Learned Senior Counsel says, the F.I.R. giving reference to the date of 24/25.5.2011 of any conspiracy is blatantly false, as on that day, there was no approval to the institution. 6. Unfortunately, the facts are twisted. F.I.R. says that there was a report dated 24.5.2011 prepared by the members of CCIM; it has no nexus either to the permission or refusal. 7. 6. Unfortunately, the facts are twisted. F.I.R. says that there was a report dated 24.5.2011 prepared by the members of CCIM; it has no nexus either to the permission or refusal. 7. It cannot be said, as learned Senior Counsel repeats that root cause of prosecution is senior police officer. Even the investigation, which was at preliminary stage, prima facie, reveals total slackness on the part of petitioners to co-operate investigator and even tendency to bounce back the queries. The matter, at this stage, cannot be said to be manifestly attended with malice or absurdity. It also cannot be said that there is civil wrong or blend of civil wrong. Prima facie, record shows, the petitioners have manipulated records for monetary gain. This is even primarily noticed by inspecting team of CCIM. The attendance record, either of the students or of the staff is tailor made. This Court, at this juncture, should not further ponder and dwell upon the allegations. However, bulky record before this court and more lean to smokescreen made by the petitioners. Considering the report of investigator and the available material, referred in the F.I.R., it cannot be expected that this Court should exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. We reiterate, there is prima facie material against the petitioners. 8. The writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged. The observations are prima facie in its nature, should not influence at the time of bail application, if moved, by the petitioners. Petition dismissed.