JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Hari Bans Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Vikas Goswami, learned Additional Government Advocate (‘A.G.A.’) appearing for the State.

2. By the instant petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) applicants seek quashing of the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 34 of 2010 (State vs. Shiv Kumar Chandal and others) under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 409, 120B IPC, and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending in the court of Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Firozabad.

3. All the applications, herein, are being heard together on consent. The applicants are chargesheeted in the same case crime number. For the sake of convenience the facts arising in Ratan Kumar Saraswat[first applicant] (36633/2013) is being referred to.

4. This Court had granted protection to the applicants from coercive measures. It is informed by the learned counsel for the applicants that the trial since then has not proceeded.

5. The facts, briefly stated, is that applicants were employees in the office of Soil Conservation Firozabad. The first applicant retired from the post of Accountant, on 31 December 2005. NABARD launched a time bound scheme in 1997-98 for improvement of the denuded and banjar (infertile) soil. A meeting of the District Soil and Water Conservation Committee was held on 25 September 1997, under the Chairmanship of the District Magistrate, Firozabad, wherein, it was decided that tractor and machinery shall be utilized for completing the work of the Scheme in a time bound programme. Accordingly, in compliance of the order issued by the State Government earth work and other related work was carried out on behalf of the Soil Conversation Officer.

6. It is urged that entire work was done on the directions passed by the higher authorities and the work of the Scheme was executed as per the norms of the Government. It appears that some complaint came to be filed with regard to lapses in the execution of the work and loss caused to the Government. On the complaint, it is urged that Technical Audit Cell conducted an enquiry headed by Additional Director of Agriculture (Soil Conservation). Upon considering the report, Director, Agriculture U.P. informed the State Government that the work was done as per norms and no loss of any kind was caused to the Government. It, however, appears that on the complaint, Secretary of the Department, vide communication dated 14 July 1998, directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Economic Offences Wing, [EOW] to inspect the project work and enquire whether there was any loss caused to the Government in execution of the project. Pursuant thereto, EOW, CID, Kanpur, appointed an Investigating Officer (‘IO’) to enquire the matter. After preliminary enquiry, an F.I.R. was lodged on 6 July 2005. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of the complainant Smt. Meena Rajpur, Deputy Director of Agriculture (Soil Conservation), Chhedi Lal Gupta, Soil Conservation Officer, Unit IV Firozabad, who stated that no irregularity was committed in execution of the project, and statement of the applicant. Applicant stated that work of the applicant is of supervisory nature and he performed his duty as per orders of the higher authorities; applicant has not committed any irregularity in performing the work under the Scheme. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted to the State Government seeking sanction to prosecute the applicants. Upon sanction, the learned Court below took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 5 April 2010. The cognizance order and consequential proceedings are under challenge.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution is malicious as the complaint was lodged by a local leader; applicant is a petty employee (Accountant); Scheme was duly enquired by the Technical Audit Cell, which did not find any irregularity or financial loss; Scheme was executed as per norms prescribed by t