ORDER

Present petition is filed under Section 482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR at Crime No. 38 of 2022 registered in Police Station Raghunathpur, District Sheopur under Section 409 of IPC.

The facts in brief are that a written complaint was made by the Chief Executive Officer on 31/3/2022 against the petitioner – accused stating therein that the petitioner, who was working as Incharge Secretary in Gram Panchayat Dohri Babdi, has misused the public fund and has not furnished the government records. Thereafter, a FIR was lodged against the petitioner for misappropriation of public money to the tune of Rs.15,38,395/- which was required to be deposited in the account of Maa Vaishno Devi Building Material Proprietor Sunil and instead money was transferred in the account of father of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitoner argued that the FIR has been registered on the basis of alse fact that he was working as Incharge Secretary.

The petitioner has never worked as Incharge Secretary nor he has signed any cheque in regard to transfer of money in the account of his father. It is further argued that he has followed all the rules. Panchayat Account Rules specifically says that the panchayat accounts has to be operated by joint signatures of the Sarpanch and Secretary. The capacity of Gram Rojgar Sahayak is only to make available the employement to the umemployed persons working in the area of gram panchayat. For the purpose of implicating the petitioner for criminal breach of trust, the money should be entrusted to the petitioner and then in the breach of said trust, however, the ingredients of offence is lacking in the case. The petitioner was never made Incharge Secretary and he never worked as Incharge Secretary, therefore, the question of his joint signatures along with Sarpanch does not arise. The petitioner replied the notice of the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat Vijaypur stating therein that the petitioner has never worked as Incharge Secretary and, therefore, record cannot be made available by him but without going through these facts, an application has been directly sent to the concerning police station on the basis of which, present FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. It is further argued that copies of document certifying the fact that between 07/4/2016 to 07/4/2020, there were only three persons who worked as Secretary in the said gram panchayat, are enclosed. Earlier also, a complaint was made before the Lokayukta, however, the Lokayukta has dropped the proceedings, therefore, the registration of FIR without making preliminary enquiry is against the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P., [(2014) 2 SCC 1] , therefore, the FIR and its consequential proceedings be quashed.

On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there are sufficient material for registration of FIR. Only registration of FIR does not give the petitioner right to approach this Court because investigaiton is still going on. It is further argued that as per the case of Lalita Kumar (supra), preliminary enquiry is not mandatory. Earlier, dropping of the case by the Lokayukta does not bar the proceeding against the petitioner because there is no law in this regard. All the facts narrated in the petition are subject matter of evidence, therefore, and the same cannot be considered while deciding this petition under Section 482 of CrPC.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record.

It is in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, [AIR 1992 SC 604], the Apex Court has laid down following guidelines under which the Court can and should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing the FIR:-

“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken a