Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2277 (BOM)

Eknath v. State of Maharashtra

2014-11-13

B.R.GAVAI, V.M.DESHPANDE

body2014
JUDGMENT : B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent. The present two petitions have been filed by two accused for quashing FIR bearing No. 73 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 500 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 594 of 2014 is Manager of one Jagdamba Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Limited, Amdapur, whereas the applicant in Criminal Application (APL) No. 476 of 2014 is working as Talathi, Amdapur Division-3. 3. The State of Maharashtra had formulated a scheme vide Government Resolution dated 20.3.2014 for providing assistance to the agriculturists, who have suffered huge losses on account of natural calamity. It appears that the said scheme was to be implemented through the Collectors of the respective districts. Clause 5 of the said G.R. specifically provides that the subsidy would not be given in cash and has to be deposited in Savings Account of the beneficiary. 4. It appears that the respective Tahsildars of the concerned Tahsils had asked the Talathis within their jurisdiction to prepare a list of the beneficiaries and submit the same to the Tahsildars concerned. It further appears that Jagdamba Gramin Bigar Krushi Sahakari Pat Sanstha Limited had passed a Resolution thereby resolving to deduct an amount of Rs. 100/- as a service charge from each of the beneficiaries while giving the benefit of the said scheme to the beneficiaries. 5. F.I.R. has been lodged with an allegation that the applicant Riyaz Ahmed had given a number of bogus accounts and thereby attempted to cheat the Government. In so far as the petitioner Eknath Kale is concerned, the allegation is that he had illegally-deducted an amount of Rs. 100/- and therefore, committed an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner Eknath Kale that he being an employee of the Sanstha was bound to act as per the Resolution of the said Sanstha. It is further submitted that in any case the Sanstha has now again credited the amount of Rs. 100/- to each of the beneficiaries and, therefore, the allegation in that respect does not survive. 7. It is further submitted that in any case the Sanstha has now again credited the amount of Rs. 100/- to each of the beneficiaries and, therefore, the allegation in that respect does not survive. 7. In so far as the applicant Riyaz Ahmed is concerned, it is submitted that he had prepared the list after giving due publication and receipt of the necessary information from the Tahsildar. It is submitted that in any case the said applicant had no direct role in either receipt or distribution of the amount, inasmuch as the amounts were credited to the account of the beneficiaries directly. 8. In so far as the petitioner Eknath Kale is concerned, we find that he being an employee of the Sanstha had acted as per the Resolution of the said Sanstha and deducted an amount of Rs. 100/- towards service charges. However, as per the directions of the superior authority in the Cooperative Department, the Sanstha has now again credited an amount of Rs. 100/- to each of the beneficiaries. The perusal of the additional affidavit dated 4.9.2014 and specifically the copy of the communication addressed by Assistant Registrar to the Tahsildar dated 21.8.2014 which is annexed therein will clearly show that an amount of Rs. 100/- has been again credited to the account of the beneficiaries totalling to an amount of Rs. 29,000/-. Not only this but the Investigating Officer in his affidavit in reply dated 24.9.2014 has also stated that an amount of Rs. 29,000/- has been credited to the account of 290 beneficiaries. In that view of the matter, we find that even taking allegations in the FIR at their face value, no ingredients for any of the offences mentioned in the FIR have been made out against the applicants. 9. In so far as the applicant Riyaz Ahmed is concerned, he was acting as a Talathi and the only role that he was required to play was to give a list of beneficiaries to the Tahsildar. Though it is the case of the respondent Tahsildar that he had given bogus account numbers, it is not the case of the respondents that he had opened those bogus accounts and has dishonestly encashed the said amount credited by way of subsidy in the name of bogus beneficiaries. On the contrary, an amount of Rs. Though it is the case of the respondent Tahsildar that he had given bogus account numbers, it is not the case of the respondents that he had opened those bogus accounts and has dishonestly encashed the said amount credited by way of subsidy in the name of bogus beneficiaries. On the contrary, an amount of Rs. 4,29,500/- has been returned by the said Sanstha to the Tahsildar vide cheque No. 520680 dated 8.7.2014. This is evident from the communication addressed by the Assistant Registrar to the Tahsildar dated 21.8.2014 and the additional affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer dated 24.9.2014. It can thus be seen that it is not even the case of Tahsildar that the Talathi Riyaz Ahmed had opened the fictitious accounts in the name of bogus beneficiaries and has encashed the said amount credited in the name of bogus beneficiaries and had unjustly enriched himself. On the contrary, material placed on record would reveal that the amount which was initially sent by Tahsildar in the name of the accounts which were not in existence has been returned to the Tahsildar as stated hereinabove. In any case, it is not even the case of the respondents that the Talathi had opened any of the accounts in the name of bogus beneficiaries. 10. In that view of the matter, we find that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to nothing less than abuse of process of law and undue harassment to the employees. With these observations, the petitions stand disposed of. Rule is made absolute by quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings in FIR bearing Crime No. 73 of 2014 registered at Police Station Amdapur, Tq. Chikhli, District Buldana. No costs.