KUNDAN DATTATRYA DHAKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is filed for relief of quashing and setting aside the order of investigation made under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalgaon in Criminal Application No.1026 of 2016. This proceeding was filed by present Respondent No.2 and he had prayed for making order of investigation for offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420 , 120-B etc. of the Indian Penal Code and few Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It appears that initially the officers of technical wing, Engineers of Zilla Parishad were also made accused, but when the Court made query as to how investigation can be ordered when there was no sanction as required under the Prevention of Corruption Act , the complainant deleted those officers to see that he gets some order. This Court is making observations with regard to the officers of Zilla Parishad, who are shown to be deleted from the complaint and the power of police to make investigation against them also at proper place.

(2.) Both the sides are heard.

(3.) Respondent No.2, original complainant is a resident of village Mumrabad, Tahsil and District Jalgaon. The submissions made and record show that the Central Government had prepared a policy to see that the schemes are prepared for villages for supplying drinking water to the villagers. The schemes were to be started under the name Rashtriya Gramin Peyajal Yojana. The schemes for the villagers are required to be implemented through Zilla Parishad. For implementation of the scheme at village level, committees are required to be created and they consist mainly of the Chairman, who is office bearer of Panchayat and Secretary, who is also office bearer of Village Panchayat. Such committee is called as Village Water Supply and Sanitation Committee. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were the office bearers of the committee during the initial period and Accused Nos.3 and 4 were office bearers of the committee during subsequent period. The present petitioner, contractor is shown as Accused No.6 in the private complaint.