Judgment : [K.U. Chandiwal, J.] 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent. 2. By present Criminal Application the Applicants, then President of Municipal Council, Kinwat and Chief Executive Officer, respectively, seek quashment of F.I.R. vide Crime No.3005 of 2011, dated 11th March 2011, registered at Police Station, Kinwat, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 468, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C."). Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were also members of said Municipal Council, at the relevant time. 3. A resolution was passed in Municipal Council, Kinwat on 4th January 2010, and approved for expenditure of Rs.80,00,000/-(Rupees Eighty Lakh) to provide High Mask System for street light arrangements. Applicant No.1 asserts that he was not party to said resolution but it was Respondent Nos.2 and 3 who attended Meeting. For such purposes, our attention is drawn to Page No.23 of the Petition, primarily showing that Applicant No.1 did not attend the said meeting. 4. Estimation, expenditure bills were prepared by the technical staff of Municipal Council, Kinwat, which had been approved by Superintending Engineer, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. Tenders were invited on 14th August 2010 and the lowest tender was approved. This was also attended to in a meeting dated 31st August 2010, of the Municipal Council, by Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Applicant No.2, pursuant to such resolution, issued work order to a firm Nanded Electrical Engineering, Nanded. It was not acted upon nor it was given effect to. The learned Collector, Nanded directed not to release the bills, vide order dated 29th October 2010. It was also informed by learned Collector to invite tenders afresh. Consequently in two newspapers, tenders were again invited on 9th February 2011. However, by exercising powers under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short "Municipal Act"), learned Collector directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Kinwat to register an offence against the Applicants, concerned Members and employees of the Municipal Council, under Sections 44 and 96 of the Maharashtra Municipal Act, by communication dated 23rd February 2011. He felt the Resolution to purchase High Mask Lights was beyond powers of Applicants. 5. Learned counsel says, the Applicants have power to approve estimate and incur expenditure under Section 101 of the Act in discharge of duties cast under Section 49 of the Municipal Act. Mr. He felt the Resolution to purchase High Mask Lights was beyond powers of Applicants. 5. Learned counsel says, the Applicants have power to approve estimate and incur expenditure under Section 101 of the Act in discharge of duties cast under Section 49 of the Municipal Act. Mr. Talekar, learned counsel for the Applicants says, entire scenario of the matter/meetings referred to above, has been eloquently attended to by Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Applicant No.1 was not a party to approve the resolution dated 4th January 2010. There was no wrongful loss caused to Municipal Council or there was no misappropriation. He deals with provisions of Sections 44 and 96 of the Municipal Act and explain the same. 6. Mr. Adwant, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 says, doctrine of public trust is involved. Postulation of obligation under the statute were required to be discharged which Applicants have failed and premium should not be extended to wrongdoer for unlawful activities. Learned counsel, for his support, has read affidavit in reply of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and also of the State/investigator. He referred to the Judgments reported in 2012(3) S.C.C. Page No.1, 2012 (10) S.C.C. Page No.1 and 2013(1) S.C.C. Page No.544, without copies of reported Judgments or citations, however explained the theme flowing from those pronouncements. 7. Section 23 of the I.P.C. deals with "wrongful gain" and also "wrongful loss". Section 24 of I.P.C. deals with "dishonestly". Section 25 of I.P.C. speaks of "fraudulently". Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled. Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled. Dishonestly means anything done with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. These definitions play pivotal role to appreciate conduct of Applicants. 8. The prosecution slapped against the Applicants is for infraction of provisions of Sections 420, 409, 468, 201 read with 34 of I.P.C. For attracting Section 420, let us see definition of "cheating" in Section 415, which reads and proceeds in two parts. First part deals in deceiving any person fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person. First part deals in deceiving any person fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person. Later part deals with, to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally inducing the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything. Explanation provides, a dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. 9. Section 409 of I.P.C. deals with criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent. It says, whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property and it provides punishment. 10. Section 405 of I.P.C. deals with criminal breach of trust. It also postulate, entrustment with property, or with any dominion over property and dishonestly misappropriation of that property to his own use. Section 468 of I.P.C. deals with forgery for purpose of cheating. In short, preparing documents for such purposes. Section 201 of I.P.C. puts in its bracket, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender. For such purposes there should be knowledge or a reason to believe that an offence has been committed, such person caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender. 11. The basic acts emerging against the Applicants giving rise to the F.I.R. are quoted herein before. If these acts are put in coupling with offences slapped against them, we find, there was no criminal propensity on the part of the Applicants to commit the offence of deception, cheating, misappropriation or forging of documents. 12. It may be, with overall other works of the Applicants at the Municipal Council they could be lamp-post of corruption, however that will not grapple as a brazen cause to thrash the Applicants with illegalities in present case. If the resolution that has been taken is an emergent resolution, to be in violation of guidelines of Government of Maharashtra, the procedure contemplated under Section 44 or 96 of Municipal Act, will have its recourse against Applicant No.1 as a President of Municipal Council. However, incurring disqualification is altogether different situation than fixing a liability under the banner of criminal prosecution. However, incurring disqualification is altogether different situation than fixing a liability under the banner of criminal prosecution. Section 96 of Maharashtra Municipal Act speaks of liability for loss or damage to Municipal Council. Reading the F.I.R. or the action contemplated by the learned Collector, there is primarily no loss or damage caused to Municipal Council, Kinwat. 13. It is apparent, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are political rivals of Applicant No.1. They were party to the resolutions, as referred to earlier, however had the audacity to approach the learned Collector to spike resolution and forwarding it to appropriate authorities. 14. Conspectus of above facts illustrates, the prosecution is indeed persecution, calls for interference. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. Criminal Application allowed. Rule made absolute in above terms.