- (1.) Invoking inherent jurisdiction, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of a First Information Report relating to offences punishable under Sections 409/406/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code against her.
(2.) The Learned Counsel in support of this application inter alia contended as follows; (a) The allegations are motivated and have been falsely concocted out of political rivalry. (b) Without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to explain the allegations made against her, the impugned FIR has been lodged. (c) The petitioner being the Prodhan by virtue of her office has only to supervise the overall function of the Gram Panchayat and except signing the cheque jointly with Panchayat Assistant, who is a Government Officer, she had no scope to handle the funds of the Panchayat personally. (d) No details have been furnished as to how such a huge amount of money has been defalcated. (e) The entire amount of money on account of Indira Abasan Yojona has been duly distributed amongst the villagers, who are below the poverty line, according to the list prepared by B.D.O. and none made any complaint about non-receipt of such money. (f) There is no allegation against the Prodhan. (g) 335 persons to whom the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6.70 lakhs were distributed made no complaint that they have not received their dues. (h) Two of such persons, viz., Azizul Sheikh and Hazera Bewa Sheikh filed two affidavits acknowledging receipt of grants under Indiara Abasan Yojana. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State produced the Case Diary and submitted that sufficient materials have been collected during investigation showing her complicity in the commission of the alleged offences. He further submitted that the petitioners prayer for anticipatory bail has been rejected by a Division Bench of this High Court after this Court found sufficient materials against her.
(3.) Heard the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the Case Diary.;