ORDER

Heard on admission.

1. The instant petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking following reliefs:- (a) That, the copy of the impugned order letter dated23.1.24 and amended letter dated 24.01.2024 are annexed as Annexure-P/1 colly issued by respondent no.3 district education officer Morena may kindly be quashed.

(b) This Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to register the FIR against the present petitioner interest to the petitioner.

(c) This Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner.

(d) That any other relief which the court deems fit may kindly be granted.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that present petitioner, who is working as Peon (Bill Creator) in the Office of District Education Officer, District Morena, is taking exception to the order dated23.01.2024 passed by District Education Officer, District Morena, whereby direction has been given to Block Education Officer/Drawing and Disbursement Officer Block Pahargarh District Morena to register FIR against the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner is a Peon and has no role to play in causing any financial embezzlement regarding public money. No suspicious/fraudulent payment has been made by him. Even otherwise, the amount which was alleged to be embezzled has already been deposited, therefore, petitioner be protected from the wrath of criminal prosecution and direction for registration of FIR bestayed. Learned counsel referred the order dated 19.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.1386/2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and sought parity.

3. Learned counsel for respondent/State, on advance notice, opposed the prayer and submitted that this is a case where some embezzlement of publicmoney was involved and therefore B.E.O. Pahargarh, inquired into theirregularities in which irregularity to the tune of Rs.5,42,146/- was found. Out of the said amount, Rs.3,36,803/- was found in the bank account of present petitioner, therefore, a criminal case is directed to be registered against the petitioner so that proper investigation can be carried out.

4. Heard counsel for the rival parties on admission and perused the documents appended thereto.

5. This is a case where petitioner is seeking quashment of order dated23.01.2024 passed by District Education Officer, District Morena by whichD.E.O. directed the Block Education Officer to register FIR against thepetitioner. From the impugned order, it appears that out of Rs.5,22,416/- of theembezzled sum, Rs.3,36,803/- came into the account of petitioner. Petitioner, although, is a Peon, but apparently he is assigned the duty of bill generation, therefore, his designation is referred as Bill Creator. Therefore, prima facie, his role deserved to be investigated.

6. An Enquiry Team was constituted by Divisional Joint Director, Treasury and the said team conducted enquiry and gave its enquiry report dated (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) 31.10.2023. The said report indicates prima facie involvement of petitioner and some other persons who received the embezzled amount in their bank accounts.

Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides refusal of injunction in certain contingencies. The same is reproduced for ready reference:-41. Injunction when refused.— An injunction cannot be granted— t o restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings; t o restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought; to restrain any person from applying to any legislative body; to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter; to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not