The court ruled that allegations in the FIR did not establish a prima facie case against the applicant, thus quashing the proceedings due to lack of sufficient evidence and potential malice.

JUDGMENT :

NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.

1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties.

2. The applicant has approached this Court by filing the present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the First Information Report dated 19/06/2021, registered as Crime No. 0603/2021, at the non- applicant No.1, Police Station, Akot, District Akola, for offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant has further prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet/final report dated 01/02/2023 bearing charge-sheet No. 10 of 2023.

3. As per the First Information Report under challenge, the non- applicant No. 2 states that the applicant and one co-accused, namely, Mangesh Navinchandra Bondre, committed large-scale misappropriation of funds in the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Akot, from 2013-14 to 2019-20. It is further stated that the special auditor found that the co-accused Mangesh misappropriated an amount of Rs.16,19,785/- by issuing fake receipts under the loan scheme, not recording the receipts in the cash book or ledger, and appropriating the money which was handed over to the present applicant as a Secretary of the APMC. It is further stated that both the accused acted in collusion with the Auditor and delayed the submission of the final audit by one year. It is further stated that the then Chairman, in the year 2017, complained that the applicant deliberately failed to recover market fees from 36 purchasers, resulting in wrongful loss to the APMC. Thus, on these allegations the First Information Report was lodged which is challenged in the present application.

4. We have heard Shri Anil Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Nikhil Tekade, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri M.J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non- applicant No.1/State, Shri J.B. Gandhi, learned Counsel for the non-applicant No.2, and Shri K.S. Narwade, learned Counsel for the intervenor/APMC.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant by taking us through the voluminous record submits that the allegations levelled in the First Information Report, even if they are taken on their face value, do not make out any offence against the present applicant. He submits that the entire misappropriation of Rs.17,57,465/- stands admitted by the co-accused Mangesh, and he has fully repaid the said amount with 14% interest. He further states that no role of whatsoever nature is attributed to the present applicant, and this fact is also recorded in the special audit report.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the non- applicant No. 2 i.e., the original informant, harbours an ill will against the applicant as the non-applicant No. 2 was disqualified from the post of Director of APMC for having obtained the same by filing false affidavit and documents. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel submits that due to the disqualification of the non- applicant No. 2, he is in the habit of filing false and frivolous complaints. The sole object is of harassing and pressurizing him. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel prays for allowing the application and quashing the First Information Report and the charge sheet in question.

7. Per Contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly refuted the allegations in the present application and stated that large-scale misappropriation of public funds had been done by the applicants, and therefore, this would not be a fit case for quashing the proceedings in its entirety at this stage. He further submits that being a Secretary of the APMC, Akot, it was a