K.S. Rathore, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary.
(2.) THIS criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482, CrPC for quashing the F.I.R. No. 255/1998 registered at Prevention of Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 119 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Junior Accountant in the Panchayat Samiti, Neem Rana, Alwar. His job in the office is to maintain the accounts of the Panchayat Samiti. On 21.6.1996 Education Extension Officer produced a note sheet along with a list of books before the Panchayat Samiti, Neem Rana, Alwar, mentioning their in that the books mentioned in the list is necessary for the Schools of Panchayat Samiti. On 26.6.1996 Pradhan given the acceptance for purchasing of those books, and on the same day, Block Development Officer issued orders for purchasing the book for 73 schools. In compliance of the order issued by the Panchayat Samiti, books worth Rs. 1,50,285/ - have been purchased by the Block Development Officer from Neelam Sales Corporation, and ordered to make the payment to the Neelam Sales Corporation, and as per the order given by higher authorities petitioner issued the cheque. As per Rule 214 of Panchayat Raj Manual Books worth Rs. 3000/ - can be purchased per year for per school, after taking the resolution by Panchayat Samiti as such Block Development Officer purchased the books recommended by the Education Extension Officer, and approved by the Panchayat Samiti. The role of the petitioner is nowhere comes in the picture in purchasing the books. Looking to the facts mentioned in the First Information Report, no offence under Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred as an Act), and Sections 119, 120 -B, IPC is made out against the petitioner. The F.I.R. No. 255/1998 registered against the petitioner should be quashed and set aside.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in , wherein the Lordships of the Supreme Court held that Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal Court has to exercise a great deal of caution. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and prosecution of the appellants under Section 406/420, IPC is quashed. A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is already pending against the appellants and other accused held on the same facts, F.I.R. and the criminal prosecution for the alleged offence under Section 406/420, IPC amounted to abuse of process of law and hence the proceedings liable to be quashed. Therefore, the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the instant case.;