- (1.) HEARD learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 21/12/2011, passed by the Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 18/2011, whereby and whereunder, the cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, has been taken against the petitioner and others. The informant Hulash Yadav lodged a case stating therein that a Check Dam was to be constructed over Totiatand Nala under the Scheme of NAREGA. A Scheme for construction of the aforesaid Dam was passed at a place for which even administrative sanction and the technical sanction were granted by the authority. For keeping watch over the construction of the Dam, a Vigilance Committee was also formed, but in spite of administrative sanction being granted for construction of the Check Dam at a particular place, the said Check Dam was never constructed over that place, rather it was constructed at different place and, thereby, it has been alleged that this petitioner, in conspiracy with other accused, misappropriated the amount.
(2.) ON the said allegation, a first information report was registered as Bashistha Nagar P.S. Case No. 17 of 2009, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner and others. The matter was investigated upon by the Investigating Officer. But the Investigating Officer did not find allegations to be true, rather it was found that the Check Dam has been constructed at the place for which administrative approval was given, and that the informant wanted to get the Check Dam constructed near his field but that was not found to be feasible and, therefore, at other place the Check Dam was constructed and under the situation, a final form was submitted, upon which the protest petition was filed by the informant, which was treated to be a complaint and was registered as Complaint Case No. 18/2011, wherein almost the same and similar allegations were made, which were there in the first information report. Upon it, the cognizance of the offence as aforesaid was taken against the petitioner, which is under challenge. Mr. B.P.Pandey, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the complaint never constitute any offence under which cognizance has been taken as it is the case of the complainant that a Check Dam had been constructed but not at the place where the informant/complainant wanted to get it constructed but at a different place. In this regard, it was further submitted that the Investigating Officer during investigation did find that the Check Dam has been constructed at a place where it was found to be feasible and even administrative sanction had been granted for construction of the said Dam at the place where it has been constructed. Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the records, it does appear that it is the case of the informant/complainant that the Check Dam has been constructed but not at the place where the informant wanted to get it constructed rather at different place. In such situation, no offence either of cheating or forgery is made out. Accordingly, the order dated 21/12/2011, taking cognizance, is hereby quashed.
(3.) IN the result this application stands allowed.;