JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. By this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for quashing the FIR giving rise to Manikpur Police Station Case No. 32/2015 under section 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that one Sri G.S. Panesar, Project Director, DRDA, Bongaigaon, lodged an FIR alleging misappropriation of the money allotted for construction of road under the MGNREGAS scheme and in the said FIR the present petitioner and one Muhim Basumatary, Secretary of Manikpur Gaon Panchayat under Manikpur Development Block have been named as accused.

4. Learned counsel referring to the FIR and also to an order dated 13.01.2014 issued by the Block Development Officer, Manikpur Development Block, whereby the money in question was allotted, submits that there was no entrustment of the money in question with the petitioner and therefore, even if the FIR is taken in its face value and accepted in its entirety, it does not make out an offence as defined under section 405 of the IPC against the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel, relying on the following decisions, that when the allegations made in the FIR is taken in its face value and accepted in its entirety does not constitute any offence, allowing the proceeding to continue, would result in abuse of the process of court and therefore, prayed for setting aside/quashing the FIR in the instant case.

(1) Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (2000) 4 SCC 168.

(2) Radhey Shyan Khemka & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar, (1993) 3 SCC 54.

(3) Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satnarayana Reddy & ors., (2011) 12 SCC 437.

(4) V.R. Dalal & Ors. Vs. Yougendra Naranji Thakkar & Anr., (2008) 4 SCC 374

(5) Asoke Basak Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 842

5. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ms. Jahan submits, that though the accused is not a functionary of the Panchayat in his official capacity, he might be involved in the implementation of the programme under the MGNREGA scheme to be executed by the Gaon Panchayat.

6. The scope and contour of the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding initiated on a complaint or an FIR is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and also by this High Court. The Apex Court in its landmark judgment, in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors, reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, while laying down the principles, where the power under section 482 CrPC has to be exercised by the High Court, laid down the following principles :

(1) “Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegation in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document