JUDGMENT & ORDER : This is a criminal petition, filed by the accused petitioner, under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, seeking quashment of the First Information Report (FIR) in Goalpara Police Station Case No. 2/2015, registered under Sections 420/409/506 of the IPC. 2. The respondent No. 2, Sri Dipak Kumar Das of Golapara Municipal Board, filed a complaint being CR Case No. 1636/14 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, which was endorsed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Officer-In-Charge of Goalpara Police Station for registering the case and to investigate the same and to submit report in Full Form. 3. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court, the Goalpara Police Station registered the Goalpara Police Station Case No. 2/2015, under Sections 420/409/506 of the IPC. 4. The present petitioner, who is an accused in the aforesaid Goalpara Police Station case, has sought quashment of the FIR invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. 5. Before alluding the contention of the present petitioner raising grounds for quashment of the FIR, it would be appropriate to state the allegations raised in the FIR by the respondent No. 2. 6. The informant, who is the respondent No. 2 in the present petition, was an Assistant Engineer of the Goalpara Municipal Board and the accused petitioner was the Ex-Chairman thereof. During the period of his chairmanship, fund of Rs. 2,94,000/- was allocated under the BRGF scheme by the Zilla Parishad, Goalpara to the Goalpara Municipal Board against Gita Nagar Road under Ward No. 7, Goalpara Town. On 07.05.2014, the accused petitioner pressed the respondent no. 2 to execute the work of the said construction of road immediately, which the respondent No. 2 complied with, he being subordinate to the accused petitioner. On being asked for daily payments for the said work, the accused petitioner directed him to accomplish the work at any cost spending money from his own source assuring that soon after completion of the work, whole payment would be made to him. The informant/respondent no. 2 somehow managed the amount from his relatives and accomplished the work at a cost of Rs. 2,94,000/-, and thereafter, on repeated requests, the accused petitioner did not pay him the amount. The respondent no. 2 made an enquiry and found that, on 10.06.2013, the accused petitioner had withdrawn an amount of Rs. The informant/respondent no. 2 somehow managed the amount from his relatives and accomplished the work at a cost of Rs. 2,94,000/-, and thereafter, on repeated requests, the accused petitioner did not pay him the amount. The respondent no. 2 made an enquiry and found that, on 10.06.2013, the accused petitioner had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 2,20,500/- with some other amount vide SBI Cheque No. 321759 and also withdrawn the remaining amount of Rs. 73,500/-. Therefore, the accused petitioner by not making the payment to the respondent no. 2, misappropriated the entire amount during his tenure in office by cheating the complainant. The accused petitioner finally, on 15.12.2014, refused to make any payment to the respondent no. 2. 7. The record reveals that the investigation of the case has been initiated by the Police. 8. Now, the accused petitioner has filed the instant petition on the ground that during his tenure as Chairman of Goalpara Municipal Board, a group of people having vested interest being led by Sri Gautam Shome and Anowar Hussain, who were the Ex-ward Commissioners, interfered and disturbed in his official works and initiated various litigations against the Goalpara Municipal Board. According to the accused petitioner, the allegations levelled by the respondent no. 2 against him is false. He has further stated that he accomplished the work against the fund of the Municipal Board allocated to him by the Zilla Parishad and the papers related to such execution of the work are available in the office of the Goalpara Municipal Board of which he is not the custodian at present. It is further submitted that a number of cases have been filed by the present respondent no. 2 against the present accused petitioner at different times. 9. I have perused the relevant case diary produced before this Court and considered the evidence collected by the Investigating Police Officer. 10. It appears from the materials collected during investigation that the respondent no. 2 started the execution of the work w.e.f. 09.05.2014. The petitioner had withdrawn Rs. 2,20,500 on 10.06.2013 and the remaining amount of Rs. 73,500/- was withdrawn by him subsequently as against the allotted fund for construction of the aforesaid road. 11. It is a fact apparent from the materials that the purpose for which Rs. 2,94,000/- was sanctioned has been accomplished and this has not been disputed even by the informant/respondent no. 2. 2,20,500 on 10.06.2013 and the remaining amount of Rs. 73,500/- was withdrawn by him subsequently as against the allotted fund for construction of the aforesaid road. 11. It is a fact apparent from the materials that the purpose for which Rs. 2,94,000/- was sanctioned has been accomplished and this has not been disputed even by the informant/respondent no. 2. It has also come out that Rs. 2,20,500 was withdrawn against the fund allocated for the aforesaid work next month of alleged commencement of the work. The remaining amount of Rs. 73,500/- was withdrawn from the Bank on 15.12.2014. 12. It appears from the materials, as stated above, that the construction of the road for which the fund was allotted has been accomplished. Therefore, the allegations made under Section 409 of the Cr.PC against the present petitioner alleging misappropriation of the allocated fund appears to be without any substance. The other allegation is that the work was accomplished by the informant/respondent no. 2 with his own money on being assured by the present petitioner that he would pay the amount later on although inspite of repeated requests, the petitioner did not give any money to the respondent no. 2, thereby committing breach of trust. There is no evidence to prove these allegations except the solitary statement of the informant respondent no. 2 13. The witnesses, examined by the Investigating Police Officer, stated that they accompanied the informant respondent no. 2 to the accused petitioner demanding the money, which he had spent from his own pocket in the construction of the road. That the respondent no. 2 was entrusted with the work to be accomplished from his own money is not supported by the witnesses. 14. Even if the materials, collected during investigation, remains unassailed and uncontroverted, the same do not make out a case against the accused petitioner. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down some guidelines in respect of quashing of the FIR, which are of course not exhaustive. The guidelines in the aforesaid Bhajan Lal (supra) are as follows:- (i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. The guidelines in the aforesaid Bhajan Lal (supra) are as follows:- (i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 16. As discussed above, it appears that uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence against the accused petitioner, which is covered by the guideline no. (iii), referred to above. 17. That apart, the fund was provided by the Government through Zilla Parishad to the Goalpara Municipal Board for construction of the aforesaid road and that this was accomplished by the respondent no. (iii), referred to above. 17. That apart, the fund was provided by the Government through Zilla Parishad to the Goalpara Municipal Board for construction of the aforesaid road and that this was accomplished by the respondent no. 2 on mere asking by the present accused petitioner/Chairman of the Goalpara Municipal Board is found to be absurd as the work was not a private work but it was a work which had to be carried out by the Assistant Engineer, i.e., the respondent no. 2 in his official capacity, for a statutory body, i.e., Goalpara Municipal Board. 18. Further, there is no evidence to indicate, even remotely, that he had collected the money to execute the work from his relation. His mere statement cannot be taken to be so true to hold that the accused petitioner has committed the offences alleged. 19. In view of the above discussions, and the reasons recorded therein,, in the considered view of this Court, further proceeding with the FIR of Goalpara PS Case No. 2/2015 will be an abuse of the process of the Court and justice will be secured if the FIR is quashed. Accordingly, the FIR, referred to above, is quashed. 20. Accordingly, Criminal Petition stands disposed of. 21. Send down the case diary.