ORDER 1. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. Since, both the cases arise out of the same case, were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Both these applications have been filed for quashing of the order dated 18th February 2012, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in Baliapur P.S. Case No. 88 of 2009, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 (A), 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioners. 4. The first information report was lodged on the allegation that under the Scheme of NAREGA, amounts were advanced through cheques to different agencies to execute different works. The executing agencies, without completing the works to the extent to which the amounts had been advanced, retained the amounts and, thereby, they have been alleged to have misappropriated the amounts. So far as petitioner Abdul Hamid Ansari is concerned, it has been stated in the first information report that this petitioner, being a Panchayat Sevak, had advanced money to several executing agencies for execution of the works of different Schemes under NAREGA through cheques signed by this petitioner as well as Jay Jyoti Samanta, the then B.D.O.-cum-Programme Officer, whereas against the petitioner Raj Ballabh Singh, it has been alleged that he had advanced a sum of Rs. 7,500/- to one of the Contractors but he did not do any work and misappropriated the amount. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to the allegations made in the first information report, submits that the petitioners have never been alleged to have misappropriated the amounts, rather they had given advance to the contractors for executing the works and if the executing agencies did not work and retained the money, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for commission of the offences committed by the executing agencies. Furthermore, nothing is there to show that these petitioners in conspiracy with other accused persons including the executing agencies did advance the money, whereby money was misappropriated by the executing agencies and, therefore, under this situation, the case of Jay Jyoti Samanta, the then B.D.O.-cum-Programme Officer, has been quashed by this Court, after taking notice of the fact that neither it is there in the FIR nor anything has come during investigation that Jay Jyoti Samanta had conspired with the executing agencies. Similar is the case with these petitioners. They have been made accused and even the charge sheet was submitted simply on the allegation that they had advanced the money to the contractors. But, giving the amount as advance never involves the petitioners with any criminal act rather under the Scheme itself the petitioners were supposed to make payment in advance for execution of the works. Under the circumstances, the order 18/02/2012, taking cognizance against the petitioners, is fit to be quashed. 6. It be stated that in spite of ample opportunities being given, counter affidavit has not been filed. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that the petitioner Abdul Hamid Ansari, the then Panchayat Sevak and the petitioner Raj Ballabh Singh being a B.D.O.-cum-Programme Officer, were duty bound to advance money to the executing agencies for executing certain works under the Scheme of NAREGA and in discharge of their duty if these petitioners had advanced money to the executing agencies, who did not execute the works, the petitioners cannot be held liable for the offences in absence of any allegation that these petitioners in furtherance of the conspiracy facilitated the Contractors to misappropriate the amount without getting the work done. Moreover, according to Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, even the contractor in the event of work being not done, has returned the money. 8. Under the circumstances, the order dated 18th February, 2012, taking cognizance of the offences against these petitioners, is hereby quashed. 9. In the result, both these applications stand allowed. Application allowed.