The court cannot quash an FIR at this stage as it reveals a cognizable offence; detailed examination of allegations is reserved for the Investigating Officer.

Order :

1. By way of filing the instant Misc. Petition, the petitioner has made challenge to the very lodging of the FIR No. 236/2024, registered at Police Station C.P.S., A.C.B., Jaipur, for offence under Sections 13(1)(C) , 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 477-A, and 120-B of the IPC .

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 Om Prakash happened to be Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Sanwatsar for the tenure of 2010-2015. The petitioner No.2 Prithvi Raj was the Gram Sevak of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat up to year 2014. During the aforesaid period, while implementing the MGNREGA scheme, some discrepancies were noticed and upon which one Jagdish submitted a criminal complaint before the Special Judge Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bikaner, and upon which the learned Sessions Judge had sent the matter to the A.C.B. to lodge the FIR. The FIR speaks about preparation of forgery in maintaining muster roll and making false payment to number of labourers. There are allegations of colourable exercise of power and by doing so, causing huge loss to the Government Treasury. It speaks about several bits of fact for instance, Muster Roll No.3939, at Serial No.7, has a mentioning about working of one Bhanwarlal, S/o Budhram Bishnoi during period 16.03.2010 to 31.03.2010 and surprisingly, at Serial No.5, one Shravan Ram S/o Bhanwar Lal, who stands at Serial No.10, and one Sushil S/o Bhanwar Lal, were shown to have worked in the same period under SFC Scheme and as per the allegations, for one work and for a certain period, three fake payments were withdrawn from the Government account. There are several instances mentioned in the FIR like the above. In one instance, it is mentioned that at muster Roll No.3941, Serial No.3 fake entries of one Jagdish for his work during the term 16.03.2010 to 31.03.2010 shown and payment was made. However, in the said period, he was pursuing Central Senior Secondary Board examination in Bikaner. This man was also shown to be a worker for laying PVC pipelines in the same dates and payment was also made on that account. A number of instances have been examined by the vigilante whistle-blower showing fake fabricated and false entries in the Government record and obtaining huge amount from the Government account. The investigation is underway; the facts have been examined by the Investigating Officer to some extent and it was found that around 90 labourers were paid double for the same period and name of one labour had been shown for multiple works in different muster rolls and payments were also made but all pertaining to the same duration. The Investigating Officer was of the opinion that though some amount was redeposited by the accused but that does not mitigate commission of the offence still several things are yet required to be examined, it’s a case of serious corruption made by the persons given authority by the Statute to work as a trustee.

3. A bare perusal of the FIR revealing a commission of a cognizable offence and in such cases an incisive probe has to be made. This Court, while hearing a petition for quashing of the FIR, is not expected to embark upon an inquiry to make a threadbare discussion so as to examine the truthfulness and genuineness of the allegations. Certainly, it is a task to be undertaken by the Investigating Officer.

4. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out for quashing of the FIR.

5. Accordingly, the instant Misc. Petition having no force is hereby dismissed. The stay petition stands disposed of.