Bombay High Court
Krushnarao Shankarrao Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 4 January, 2018
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 Cri. Appln. No. 463/2007.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 463 of 2007
Krushnarao S/o Shankarrao Patil,
age 62 years occupation Pensioner
R/o Golibar Tekdi, Kalika Mandir, Utkarsh Colony,
Dhule Taluka and Dist. Dhule ...APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through: Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Judicature of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad.
2. Mohan S/o Dhavalu Bagul,
age 43 years occupation service
R/o Sakri Panchayat Samiti Quarters,
Sakri Taluka Sakri Dist. Dhule ...RESPONDENTS
Mr C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant.
Mr K.S. Hoke-Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respt./State
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, AND
SMT. VIBHA V. KANKANWADI, JJ.
DATE : 04th January 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.) :
Heard Mr C.R. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
2. Applicant is before this Court seeking quashment of first
information report in crime No. 176 of 2004 registered at Sakri Police
Station Dist. Dhule for the offence punishable under section 408 of the
Indian Penal Code and the proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.
32 of 2005 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Sakri.
3. Mr Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the
applicant, invited our attention to the first information report placed on
record at Annexure "A". Mr Deshpande submitted that the applicant
was working as Project Officer in the Scheme of Integrated Child
Development Scheme at Sakri in the year 1998-1999. Mr Deshpande
submitted that the report was lodged against applicant alleging that the
applicant while discharging his duty as a Project Officer in the year
1998-1999, there was a scheme of distributing sewing machines to
beneficiaries. The amount of 10% of the value of the sewing machine
was to be recovered from these beneficiaries. The applicant was
expected to recover an amount of Rs. 133/- from each of the
beneficiaries. The applicant, instead of recovering amount of Rs.
133/-, collected amount of Rs. 200/- from each beneficiary. Learned
Counsel Mr Deshpande submitted that in the report itself, it is stated
that the applicant returned amount of Rs. 50/- to each of the
beneficiaries, but failed to repay amount of Rs. 17/- to each of the
beneficiaries. It is alleged that the applicant failed to return amount of
Rs. 17/- against each beneficiary and against all these 93
beneficiaries. Thus, an amount of Rs. 1581/- in total was an act of
embezzlement of the amount by the applicant. Mr Deshpande,
learned Counsel submitted that the report was lodged against
applicant under section 408 of the Indian Penal Code in 2004. He
submitted that the report was lodged on 10th December 2004 for the
alleged misdeed of the applicant of year 1999. Learned Counsel Mr
Deshpande submitted that bare perusal of the report would show that
the report is lodged at a very belated stage. Learned Counsel then
submitted that there is no explanation offered in the report about the
delay of nearly five years in lodging the report. Learned Counsel then
submitted that for the very act of non-refund of the amount, the
applicant was subjected to departmental proceedings. Mr Deshpande
invited our attention to an order dated 11th August 2004. Mr
Deshpande submitted that the departmental proceedings initiated
against the applicant with the charges of failure in refund of the
amount. Mr Deshpande then submitted that the applicant faced a
departmental enquiry. He submitted his explanation to the authority in
the departmental enquiry. Mr Deshpande then submitted that the
applicant was punished in the departmental enquiry proceedings by
order of the State Government with concurrence of the Public Service
Commission. The applicant was faced with deduction of Rs. 100/- per
month from his salary/pension account for five years. Mr Deshpande
submitted that the amount so recovered from the applicant is nearly
Rs. 6000/- i.e. more than the amount of the alleged embezzlement
against the applicant. Thus, Mr Deshpande submitted that the report,
which is lodged against applicant at a belated stage, is unsustainable.
Moreover, the applicant faced two proceedings simultaneously. Out
of these two proceedings, the applicant was awarded with the
punishment in the departmental enquiry. Mr Deshpande submitted
that the amount recovered from the applicant is more than the amount
of Rs. 1581/- and, as such, no loss is caused to the State Government.
Mr Deshpande submits that at the time of filing of the application, the
applicant was retired person, against whom recovery was sought for
in a departmental enquiry. It is, thus, submission of Mr Deshpande
that the proceedings initiated against the applicant is an abuse of
process of law and is clearly unsustainable.
4. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
5. We have gone through the material placed on record.
Learned Counsel Mr Deshpande for the applicant was justified in
submitting that though it is alleged that incident took place in the year
1999, the report is lodged in the year 2004 and there is no explanation
in the report. Mr Deshpande was also justified in submitting that the
applicant faced two proceedings simultaneously. Mr Deshpande was
also justified in submitting that the applicant was subjected to
punishment in the departmental enquiry, whereby there was periodical
recovery from the applicant at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month for the
period of five years and the amount was much more than alleged
amount of embezzlement. In our opinion, no purpose would be served
by maintaining the proceedings against the applicant. Learned
Counsel for the applicant has made out a case. Learned Counsel was
justified in submitting that initiation of the proceedings or its
continuation would be abuse of process of law.
6. In the result, the application is allowed in terms of Prayer
Clause "B". Rule made absolute accordingly.
7. Application is disposed of accordingly.
( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE )
JUDGE. JUDGE.
Madkar
