IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that findings from a civil suit can significantly impact subsequent criminal proceedings, particularly when the allegations do not substantiate a criminal offense and indicate a civil dispute.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. In this criminal application, filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.PC"), the applicants have questioned the correctness of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot dtd. 8/6/2012 and also the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Telhara dtd. 15/4/2010. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Telhara, by order dtd. 15/4/2010, issued process against the applicants for the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 409, 419, 420, 422, 468, 471 and 477(A) read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). This order of issuance of process was challenged by filing the revision application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot by the applicants. The revision application came to be dismissed.

2. The facts relevant for the decision of this criminal application may be stated as under :

The applicant Nos.1 to 17 at the relevant time were the members of the Gram Panchayat, Hiwarkhed. The applicant No.1 was the Sarpanch and the applicant No.2 was the Upsarpanch. The applicant Nos.1 to 17 are shown as accused Nos.1 to 17 in the complaint, filed by the non-applicant No.2/complainant. The nonapplicant No.3, who is now dead, was accused No.18. At the relevant time, he was the Secretary of the said Gram Panchayat. It is the case of the non-applicant No.2/complainant that in the year 2001, the Gram Panchayat Hiwarkhed had undertaken the work of construction of drainage in the village Hiwarkhed. According to the non-applicant No.2/complainant, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 18 had approached him and requested him to supply iron, cement and other materials at the approved rates on the credit basis for the construction of drainage. As per the agreement, the applicants purchased the iron, cement and other materials worth Rs.64, 450.00. The said material was delivered under the delivery memo. The applicants acknowledged the receipt of the materials by issuing receipts in Form No.7-A and also the liability to pay Rs.64, 450.00. It is further case of the non-applicant No.2/complainant that the applicants demanded Rs.10, 000.00 as hand loan to pay the labour charges. The non-applicant No.2/complainant paid the same. The applicants issued receipt No.6 on 23/6/2001 for Rs.10, 000.00. In respect of this liability of the Gram Panchayat, a Resolution was passed in the meeting of Gram Panchayat, Hiwarkhed held on 18/6/2001 and in the said Resolution, the applicants have accepted and acknowledged the liability to pay the above amount to the non-applicant No.2/complainant. The receipts were issued in favour of the non-applicant No.2/complainant.

3. The non-applicant No.2/complainant made a demand of the money from the applicants. Since the amount was not paid, he issued a notice under Sec. 180 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 on 27/3/2002 and made a demand of the money. On failure of the applicants to pay the money, the nonapplicant No.2/complainant filed a civil suit for recovery of the money on 6/1/2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Telhara bearing Regular Civil Suit No.05/2003. In the written statement filed by the applicants and others in the said suit, the claim of the non-applicant No.2/complainant was opposed. They denied their liability. They denied the nature of transaction. The applicant No.23 denied the Resolution dtd. 18/6/2001. The receipts, payment etc. was also denied. It is stated that after recording the evidence in the civil suit, the non-applicant No.2/complainant came to know on the basis of the record that the payment to the tune of Rs.74, 450.00 was shown to have been made to the complainant on 23/6/2001. In fact, he had not received the payment. Further perusal of the record revealed that under the Voucher No.283, the payment of Rs.64, 000.00 was made to one Abdul Salam Abdul Kadar and not to the complainant. On these averments, the non-applicant No.2/complainant filed