RAMESH UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is preferred by the petitioner herein/accused for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.178/2011 under Section 409 of IPC at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior and its consequent criminal proceedings bearing Sessions Trial No.75/2013 pending before VII Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior.

(2.) Background facts of the case, in brief, are that in the matter of implementation of the Scheme of the State Government for providing Live Stock/Milking Animals to the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category persons embezzlement of the Government funds had taken place, therefore, on the basis of report lodged by the Collector, Gwalior after conducting an enquiry in regard to embezzlement of the Government funds to the tune of Rs.16.20 lacs an FIR at Crime No.178/2011 under Section 409 of IPC was registered against the accused person, the present petitioner. The criminal law was triggered and set in motion. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused before the Competent Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Dy. Director, Veterinary and Executive Officer of M.P. Live Stock Poultry Development Corporation, Gwalior at the relevant point of time, some complaint was received to the effect that instead of providing live stock to the beneficiaries, cash between Rs.6,000/- to Rs.10,000/- had been given, therefore, the complaint got inquired and on the basis of the inquiry report and under the orders of the Collector, Gwalior, an FIR was registered against the petitioner. Since, the petitioner has not committed any offence, therefore, the true facts were brought to the notice of the higher authorities of the Department by the petitioner, then an inquiry was again conducted by a team of officers and found that no offence has been committed by the petitioner and he has been exonerated. Even then, the police without considering the relevant inquiry report, malafide implicated him in respect of the offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner had only issued the utilization certificate to the beneficiaries after handing over the milking animals as per the Scheme of the State Government and if the beneficiaries have not kept the same, then it cannot be said that the petitioner is responsible for that and on the aforesaid basis, the benefit of anticipatory bail was extended to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is innocent. There is no legal evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC. The continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing the FIR and the consequent criminal proceedings pending against him. Learned counsel cited the following decisions in support of his contention:-