A.N.JINDAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Sona Devi, Ex-Sarpanch, resident of village Sudhour, has invoked the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 155 dated 17.05.2006 under Sections 409, 420 IPC, registered against her at Police Station Shahbad, Distt. Kurukshetra (Annexure P6).
(2.) THE allegations as laid down in FIR are that Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Shahbad (Kurukshetra), forwarded a letter No. 4217 dated 17.05.2006 to SHO, Police Station, Shahbad, for registration of the case against the petitioner, on the allegations that during tenure of the petitioner as Sarpanch i.e. w.e.f. Year 2002 to 2005, the grant was given to Development Samiti Sudhour. When the assessment was made, then it came out that the petitioner had embezzled a sum of Rs. 2,19,958/-. Before registration of the case, letter was written by Block Development to the Deputy Commissioner on 21.04.2006, wherein, he pointed out that the following grants were given to Gram Panchayat Vikas Samiti, Sudhour :- 1. For construction of streets : Rs. 204944.00 2. For construction of boundary wall of school : Rs. 210877.00 3. Retaining Wall : Rs. 482573.00 4. For construction of Drain (PRI) : Rs. 32708.00 He further reported that, on the assessment, difference has been found. The evaluation of Rs. 3,96,000/- for C.C. Street construction, was done and as per evaluation a sum of Rs. 2,04,994/- has been spent on this work and a sum of Rs.191066/- has been embezzled by the petitioner. He further observed that a sum of Rs. 2,16,810/- was received for the construction of boundary wall of the school, out of which only Rs. 2,10,877/- were spent. Out of a sum of Rs. 4,95000/- received for the purpose of retaining wall, amount of Rs. 4,82,573/- was spent. Out of a sum of Rs. 43,300/- received under the PRI Scheme. Only a sum of Rs. 32,708/- was found to be spent. Thus, she embezzled a sum of Rs. 2,19,958/-. In nutshell, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Shahbad, vide his letter No. 3995 dated 21.04.2006 informed the Deputy Commissioner, regarding the misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 2,19,958/-, by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, vide his letter No. 1640/Panchayat dated 11.05.2006, directed the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Shahbad to first issue notice regarding the recovery of the embezzled amount, and in case, the reply is not found satisfactory, the case be registered. In pursuance of the said letter, the Block development and Panchayat Officer issued a letter dated 17.05.2006, directing the petitioner to make good the loss of the embezzled amount, but neither any explanation was submitted nor the said amount was deposited. Therefore, the FIR in question has been got registered against her on the grounds that in view of Sections 53 and 204 of the Haryana Gram Panchayat Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), no case is made out against her. Against the quashing petition, the State has filed reply submitting that the case was registered against the petitioner, after complying with due formalities. Petitioner is guilty of the offence under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC. From the bare allegations in the FIR, the aforesaid offences are constituted. Provisions of Section 53 and Section 204 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, are not applicable to the instant case. The provisions of Section 53 of the act are applicable only in case of loss, waste or miss application of Gram Fund, if the same is inconsequence of neglect or misconduct. Similarly, Section 204 is applicable only in case of an act done in good faith under the Act.
(3.) ARGUMENTS heard. Record perused.;