- (1.) HEARD learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) SINCE , both the cases arise out of the same case, were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. Both these applications have been filed for quashing of the order dated 18th February 2012, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in Baliapur P.S. Case No. 88 of 2009, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 (A), 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioners.
(3.) THE first information report was lodged on the allegation that under the Scheme of NAREGA, amounts were advanced through cheques to different agencies to execute different works. The executing agencies, without completing the works to the extent to which the amounts had been advanced, retained the amounts and, thereby, they have been alleged to have misappropriated the amounts. So far as petitioner Abdul Hamid Ansari is concerned, it has been stated in the first information report that this petitioner, being a Panchayat Sevak, had advanced money to several executing agencies for execution of the works of different Schemes under NAREGA through cheques signed by this petitioner as well as Jay Jyoti Samanta, the then B.D.O. -cum -Programme Officer, whereas against the petitioner Raj Ballabh Singh, it has been alleged that he had advanced a sum of Rs. 7,500/ - to one of the Contractors but he did not do any work and misappropriated the amount.;