The court should not assess the merits of the evidence at the stage of considering a Petition for quashing of the FIR under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. if the FIR makes out an offence.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. We have heard the extensive submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the learned Prosecutor on behalf of the State and the learned Advocate on behalf of respondent no.2-informant.

3. After an extensive hearing and upon going through the record, threadbare, we expressed our view to the petitioners that, we are not convinced in entertaining this Petition, for quashing of the F.I.R. under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (In short, "the Cr.P.C."), and that he may take instructions, as to whether the petitioners desire to withdraw this Petition, since a reasoned order would attract certain observations. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits, on instructions, that the petitioners desire an order from this Court.

4. By this Petition, the petitioners have put-forth prayer clause "B", which reads as under :-

"B) That, by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, the proceeding of R.C.C. No.150/2018 pending before the Ld. J.M.F.C., Sakri, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule in Crime No.I-157/2016 registered at Sakri Police Station, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule dated 07.11.2016 for the offence punishable U/s 420, 464, 465, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of present petitioners"

5. Though, this Petition was filed on 18.01.2019, this Court has not granted any ad-interim relief to the petitioners and in fact, has made it clear that the pendency of this matter does not amount to granting any stay to the proceedings before the trial Court.

6. Respondent No.2 is the Extension Officer of the (Grampanchayat), Panchayat Samiti, Sakri, Tq.Sakri, Dist. Dhule. In fact, he is the person, who has blown the lid over a house scam, known in local parlance, as "Gharkul Ghotala". He preferred a complaint with the Police Station, Sakri on 05.11.2016, by which, he has pointed out that one Lakadibai Bhimaji Pawar had died several years ago and the second wife of Bhimaji Pawar; viz.Ukhadibai Bhimaji Pawar, applied for a financial grant under the "Indira Awas Gharkul Yojna", by impersonating as Lakadibai, vide which she was entitled for a financial assistance of Rs.1,00,000/-. Such monitory assistance was for the plain areas and Rs.1,05,000/- for the hilly region. These amounts were to be paid in three installments, i.e. two installments of Rs.35,000/- each, and the last installment of Rs.25,000/-. Rs.5,000/- was for the beneficiary. Rs.95,000/- were to be spent on the construction of the house and a sanitary block (toilet block).

7. As Ukhadibai had created a fraud, which came to the knowledge of respondent no.2, that he filed a complaint with the Police Station.

8. The F.I.R. was registered on 07.11.2016. Subsequently, a charge-sheet has also been filed against all the accused, out of which, these two petitioners are accused nos.4 and 5. They are Assistant Junior Engineer and Sectional Engineer, respectively with the Panchayat Samiti, Sakri.

9. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has strenuously canvassed that the role of the petitioners is earmarked only at the stage of granting the third installment of Rs.25,000/-. That third installment has still not been paid and the beneficiary Ukhadibai, who is an impostor of Lakadibai, has promptly returned the entire amount of Rs.70,000/-, received by her, to the Panchayat Samiti. He further submits that if the scheme of this "Gharkul Yojna" is perused, the offence on the part of Ukhadibai was exposed before the role of the petitioners could commence. They cannot be blamed for the acts committed by the Gram Sevak, Village Development Officer or the Sarpanch. They had no role to play in the grant of the first two installments, and therefore, they have been incorrectly arrayed as accused in the F.I.R.

10. The learned Prosecutor and the learned Advocate representing the informant, have pointed out t