The power to quash criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with abundant caution, and the allegations in the complaint must disclose a prima facie case against the accused.

ASHA ARORA, J.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceeding being G.R. No. 1071 of 2016 arising out of Tarapith P.S. Case no. 56 of 2016 dated 6/11/2016 under section 403/406/420/409 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampurhat, Birbhum.

2. The facts in brief leading to the present application may be summarized as follows:

3. On 6/11/2016 the Secretary, Sandhyajole Samabay Krisi Unnayan Samity who is the opposite party no. 2 herein made a written complaint at Tarapith P.S. alleging commission of offences under section 403/406/420/409 IPC against the petitioner. According to the aforesaid complaint, the Sandhyajole Samabay Krisi Unnayan Samity is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society run by a Board of Directors elected from among the members of the society in accordance with the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 and West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011. The statutory audit of the said society for the period from 1/4/2007 to 31/3/2014 was conducted by a senior auditor Grade II, Rampurhat the report of which reflected several anomalies in transactions particularly in cash book entries, deposits, borrowings, loan and advances resulting in misappropriation of several lacs. It is further averred in the written complaint that from the office records it appears that Amir Hossain, the erstwhile manager of the Society (the petitioner herein) was in charge of the aforesaid work and is responsible for the misappropriation. The said Amir Hossain had submitted an undertaking on 25/5/2012 long before the extent of misappropriation was ascertained by the auditors, shouldering the entire responsibility of financial anomalies for the period during which he was the manager of the society and committed to refund the amount of seven lac to the society which he had misappropriated. After the audit report the petitioner was served notice by the society to refund the amount but he refused. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint the criminal proceeding being Tarapith P.S. Case No. 56 of 2016 dated 6/11/2016 under section 403/406/420/409 IPC was initiated against the petitioner. While the investigation was well underway the petitioner filed the present application and obtained an order of stay of the impugned proceeding.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously argued that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR which does not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. It is pointed out that the written complaint was lodged on 6/11/2016 long after the petitioner's retirement on 15/3/2012. Continuance of the proceeding on the basis of such FIR is an abuse of the process of court. To buttress his submission on the point of delayed and cryptic FIR, reliance has been placed on the case of Gajanan Dashrath Kharate versus State of Maharashtra reported in, (2016) 4 SCC 604 paragraph 11 and in the case of Bhagwan Jagannath Markad and others versus State of Maharashtra, (2016) 10 SCC 537 paragraph 26 and 27. Referring to section 32 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the board of directors are responsible for managing the affairs of the society so the petitioner who was working under the said board cannot solely be held liable. In this context reference has also been made to Rule 53 of West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011 which relates to "Duties of the Board." Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress that it is the duty of the board to maintain accounts, receive and disburse money etc. for which the manager had no responsibility. It has further been argued that the definition of "officer" under section 4 sub section (47) of the Act does not include the post of manager which has deliberately been excluded. Placing reliance upo