N.K.KAPOOR, J. - (1.) THIS petition is for quashing of FIR No. 208 dated 29.10.1989 on the ground that the petitioners have been falsely implicated; that prima facie allegations made in the FIR even if taken at their face value do not constitute any offence against the petitioners; that the present proceedings are a mala fide act with ulterior motive to involve the petitioners.
(2.) PURSUANCE to the notice of motion issued by the Court, reply had been filed by way of affidavit of Sh. Raghbir Singh Chahal, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Sub Division) Ferozepur, controverting the various material averments made in the petition. Before examining the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners, it would be appropriate to briefly note the version as given in the first information report. Under a scheme for financial assistance to the Scheduled Caste families for promotion of Fish Culture in the State, one Sh. Mandha applied for a loan of Rs. 6500. This loan amount was to be disbursed to Sh. Mandha in four instalments. Before such instalments could be disbursed, it was to be verified by the officials of the Fisheries Department whether the applicant had taken necessary steps for excavating the pond for fish culture. As per FIR lodged by the Inspector, Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur, three instalments of Rs. 1625/- each were given to Sh. Mandha on the recommendation of Sh. Avinash Modgil, Fisheries Officer, Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, District Fisheries Officer, and Surinder Mohan Dogra, District Fisheries Officer, Ferozepur. According to the FIR, these officers of the Fisheries Department made false and wrong report for the monetary gain about the excavation work done by Sh. Mandha. In fact, Mandha had not excavated any pond for fish culture. It was thus prayed that Mandha is liable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sarv. Avinash Modgil, Surinder Mohan Dogra and Tejinder Pal Singh are liable under Sections 420, 406, 109 read with Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) THE plea of the petitioners is that admittedly the amount in respect of three instalments had been disbursed to Mandha against valid receipts. Per se there is nothing to suggest that the petitioners had any role in the release of the instalments or that they had taken any bribe in clearing the necessary paper. It is essentially a Civil liability of Mandha to pay back the loan advanced by the government. According to the counsel, petitioner No. 1 was transferred to Zira and he, in fact, had relinquished the charge on 27.3.1985. In this way, he cannot be held to have played any role in sanctioning of second as well as third instalment. In fact, it is only during the fourth and the final instalment that an enquiry was ordered to find out whether Mandha had, in fact, dug up the pond upto 75% as stated by him in his application. It is then that it came to light that Mandha had not completed his work upto 75%, that the present proceedings have been launched against the petitioners as well as Mandha.;