JUDGMENT NARESH H. PATIL, J. :- Heard. The intervenor's application was allowed by this Court. We have perused the said order. We have heard the submissions of the intervenors also. 2. The applicant, who served for 36 years as a Teacher/Head Master with Jagdamba High School at Mahur, Tq. Mahur, district Nanded, filed the present criminal application invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying for following reliefs:- "B) The investigation papers of Crime No. 42 of 2005 (dated 26.2.2005) registered at the instance of present Non-Applicant No.2 with Vazirabad police station, Nanded, may kindly be called for. C) This Criminal Application may kindly be allowed by quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. dated 26.2.2005 (Crime No. 42/2005) to the extent of this applicant, registered with Vazirabad police station, Nanded at the instance of present non-Applicant No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 467, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code." 3. The applicant's case is that in the year 1996 he came to be appointed as Head Master and was holding the said post till filing of this application. There was a dispute in respect of Change Report filed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nanded, which was accepted by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad. The dispute arose in respect of acceptance of Change Report, in the proceeding of the RJE (BPT) No. 114 of 2003 and RJE No. 137 of 2003 filed by the opposite party of the managing committee members. Both these proceedings were decided by common judgment and order dated 6.8.2004, by the learned Adhoc Additonal District Judge, Nanded. Both the applications were allowed and the impugned order therein dated 7.8.2003 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nanded for fresh enquiry. 4. It is contended that on 19.8.2004, a meeting of managing committee members took place. In the said meeting, unanimously a separate resolution came to be passed, in which the applicant and one Trustee viz. Purushottamrao Deshmukh were empowered to deal with financial affairs of the Trust. In the light of said resolution, Secretary of the Trust viz. Purushottamrao Deshmkh had filed an application on 22.8.2004 to the office of District Social Welfare Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded seeking permission to open bank account in the name of Shri Gurumurti Mahant Dattaram Bharati B.C. Boys Hostel, Mahur, District Nanded. In the light of said resolution, Secretary of the Trust viz. Purushottamrao Deshmkh had filed an application on 22.8.2004 to the office of District Social Welfare Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded seeking permission to open bank account in the name of Shri Gurumurti Mahant Dattaram Bharati B.C. Boys Hostel, Mahur, District Nanded. Consequently, in view of resolution passed by the management of the Trust, District Social Welfare Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded issued two cheques, one for Rs. 2,88,000/- towards purchase of food grains and other articles to the students of the hostel and another for Rs.14,400/- towards the salary of Superintendent of Hostel. The necessary procedure was followed by the management and thereafter said amount was utilized for the purpose, for which it was directed by the Zilla Parishad. 5. In the situation F.I.R. is lodged on 23.8.2004 (No. 60 of 2004) by respondent No.2 (now deceased). He claimed to be Chairman of the Trust. In the F.I.R. he alleged that false and bogus documents were prepared to cheat the Trust by showing Trustee Purushottamrao as a Secretary and the applicant is one of the accused and offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. was registered. The applicant and Purushottamrao had approached the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail and the same was granted in their favour. 6. The applicant by this application now seeks to challenge the F.l.R. No. 42 of 2005 and the proceeding initiated consequent to the same. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant being Head Master had no role in the dispute. A committee of three members was constituted to deal with the affairs and on the instructions and decisions of management, the applicant being Head Master and ex-officio Secretary, had utilized the funds for, which it was sanctioned and receipts to that effect were obtained. The counsel submits that the applicant is retired 7 years ago, however, he is not •getting any pensionary benefits, as the present proceeding and the complaint is still pending on record. 8. Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit in reply in which it is contended that false record was prepared and the receipts submitted are not reliable, therefore, application deserves to be dismissed. 9. 8. Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit in reply in which it is contended that false record was prepared and the receipts submitted are not reliable, therefore, application deserves to be dismissed. 9. Another reply is filed by Deelip Aba Surkul, Police Sub Inspector of Vazirabad police Station, Nanded, in which it is contended that the applicant has forged the documents and cheated the Trust. 10. We find further affidavit in reply filed by Rajkumar Ambadas Shopi in the capacity of general power of attorney of Rajesh Madhukarrao s/o Jagjeevanrao Deshmukh, who is intervenor in this matter. In paragraphs 19 and 20 of said affidavit in reply, it is contended, as under:- "19. Therefore, from the circumstances, it clearly reveals that, the applicant has applied for opening bank account. The applicant is also trustee as well as signatory to the resolution dated 19.8.2004 and therefore, interim relief granted on 6.2.2006 deserves to be vacated. 20. The applicant himself on 24.1.2005. submitted written submission before Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, wherein he has specifically stated that, he is trustee and also narrated how the resolution dated 19.8.2004 came to be passed. He has also prayed to disburse the grants in the capacity of trustee of said Mandal." 11. Learned A.P.P. contacted concerned police station during the course of day and on telephonic instructions received, it was stated that respondent No.2 complainant is dead. The police had prepared "A" summary report in respect of co-accused Purushottam, however, the police could not present the same in the trial court, in view of interim relief in respect of further proceedings to the extent of the present applicant. Thereafter the co-accused has died. 12. We have perused the record placed before us, including replies filed by respective respondents. 13. Prima facie, we do not find that a case is made out against the applicant for initiating proceeding against him. The dispute in essence relates to the control of the management of the Trust. Even further documents placed on record on affidavit filed are not sufficient enough to involve the applicant by raising a convincing ground to the effect that there is a case made out against him for initiating criminal prosecution. The subsequent developments which took place after filing of application need to be taken into consideration. 14. Even further documents placed on record on affidavit filed are not sufficient enough to involve the applicant by raising a convincing ground to the effect that there is a case made out against him for initiating criminal prosecution. The subsequent developments which took place after filing of application need to be taken into consideration. 14. The counsel for the applicant submits that due to pendency of this application, the applicant, who served for 36 years, is not getting any pensionary benefits. We may not observe anything on the said aspect, as the issue relating to grant of pensionary benefits is entirely different and falls under the jurisdiction of appropriate authority. 15. Taking into consideration the material placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that the F.I.R. registered against the applicant deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, following order:- ORDER I. F.I.R. No. 42 of 2005, dated 26.2.2005 registered with Vazirabad police station, district Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 467,471 r.w. 34 of I.P.C., to the extent of applicant, is quashed and set aside. II. The prosecution may take appropriate steps in respect of other accused persons. We do not express any opinion on the same. In case, any application is presented in the trial court, in respect of other accused persons, the same be dealt with in accordance with law. III. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Application allowed.