LAWS(BOM)-2007-10-14

MANISHA MADHKAR MATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On October 04, 2007
MANISHA MADHUKAR MATE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant accused seeks to quash the complaint case and the F. I. R. registered on the basis of the complaint at the directions of the magistrate.

(2.) Facts of the case are as follows: applicant was elected as a President of the Municipal Council Akot for the period 2001-06. Government had sanctioned vide its letter dated 1-6-1996 sumptuary allowance payable to the President of the Municipal Council. The amount sanctioned by the Government was Rs. 10,000/ -. The applicant accused was entitled to withdraw this amount since it was to be spent by her towards the entertainment of the guests. The applicant withdrew the said amount on 31-3-2003. Thereafter audit of the Municipal Council was conducted for the period 2001-03 on 7-12-2003. A note was prepared by the auditor and auditor has taken objection with regard to withdrawal of the said amount vide No. 53. It is alleged by the non-applicant-complainant that the present applicant accused committed misappropriation of Rs. 10,000/- and she had not spent any amount whatsoever for entertainment of the guests. The complainant, therefore, filed a criminal complaint case in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class under sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Along with the said complaint case the complainant also moved an application under section 156 (3) of the Code of criminal Procedure. Learned Magistrate passed an order referring the complaint to the police authorities and directing them to register an offence and investigate it. Police accordingly registered an offence and later moved an application before the Magistrate for permission to arrest the accused-applicant. Being aggrieved by both these orders this application under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed and the applicant, therefore, seeks to quash the criminal complaint as well as F. I. R. and the order directing her arrest.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel Shri Mardikar for the applicant and Shri mohta for the intervenor as well as Shri Sonare learned Additional Public prosecutor.