The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations in the FIR must prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused. The court emphasized the need for evidence to support the charges and highlighted the principles of quashing criminal proceedings as laid down in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of the FIR bearing crime no. 493/2021 registered at Police Station Budhar, district Shahdol for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC' and other consequential proceedings arising thereof.

2. A brief recapitulation of the facts of the instant case is necessary. On 15.6.2021 the FIR in question has been got lodged by one Dilip Kumar Nigam, Block Education Officer, Block Budhar, District Shahdol, against the present petitioner, making allegations in writing that the present petitioner was posted as Block Education Officer at Budhar Block, District Shahdol from 2nd of June, 2014 till 3rd of February 2020 and during this period, besides departmental bank accounts, he had opened supposititious two additional bank accounts without prior approval of the authorities concerned in the name of Prabandhak Vyasayak Prakshishan Kendra, Budhar and another in the name of Block Education Officer, Budhar. He had transferred the funds from the original bank account to the accounts opened by him and had siphoned some amount of money from the same. Thus, the petitioner by opening the aforesaid bank accounts fraudulently committed cheating and forgery and also misappropriated the government funds to the tune of Rs.1,01,72,176/-. After inquiry into the matter, the FIR in question has been registered against the petitioner for the alleged offences.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR and other consequential proceedings arising thereof, inter alia on the grounds that he is in government service and presently he is holding the post of Lecturer. The entire allegations levelled against the petitioner is absolutely false, baseless and incorrect as the accounts were not opened in the private name of the petitioner rather the same were opened in the name of the government officials under the government seal only.

There is no allegation in the FIR that the money has been transferred or siphoned by the petitioner for his personal use or in his personal gain. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he opened the bank accounts without sanction of the superior authorities and thus, it is clear that no offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC is made out because there is no allegation in the FIR that the petitioner had used any forged documents to open the bank account. Moreover, an offence under Section 420 of the IPC is also not made out because the petitioner has not even induced any person to do a particular act. If on the basis of the aforesaid FIR, his prosecution is continued it will amount to misuse of process of the court and also cause great injustice.

4. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that from the FIR, prima facie, commission of the aforesaid offences by the petitioner is made out. The petitioner is solely responsible for the fraud committed in the transaction. Hence, the petition be dismissed.

5. Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record and the documents submitted by the petitioner as well as the case diary, it appears that there is no evidence that the money has been transferred by the petitioner for his personal use and there is also no evidence that the accounts were opened in the private name of the petitioner himself and in fact, the same were opened in the name of the government officials under the government seal. From the account statements alleged to have been opened by the petitioner it is clear that no amount has either been siphoned or used by the petitioner for his personal use. From the audit report itself vide AnnexureA/3 it is evident that the office of the Auditor General has got the accounts of the office of the Block Education Officer audited and no objection has been pointed out by the