'MGNREGA§ Guarantee Scheme (for short, and otherwise also the petitionerhasnotmadeany payment, therefore, no offence is made out against him and the FIR deserves to be quashed. 4. The FIR has been registered on 02/1 1/2014 on the basis of report of a technical committee. The investigation is in progress. Apart from copy of FIR, no other documents concerning the said criminal investigation has been made partofthewrit petition.Since it is settled that FIR is not required to be in encyclopedic form and the FIR is only an information about the likely commission of a cognizable offence for the purpose of carrying on investigation, the question as to whether ultimately the investigation would end in collecting more or less incriminating evidence against the petitioner or some other accused person either named or unnamed in the FIR can only be determined when the prosecution.submits final report before the jurisdictional criminal Court. 5. Without waiting for completion of investigation, the petitioner has immediately rushed to this Court seeking quashment of FIR. Merely because under Section 3O of the Act the duty of implementation of Mp MGNREGA scheme is assigned to Project Officer/Programme Implementation Officer, It cannot be concluded at this stage that the petitionerhaswronglybeen shown as an accused. In a criminal case any personcanbemadeanaccused whose complicity is found in committing the crime or abating or conspiring with the other accused persons. 6. In State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Arun Gulab Gawali & 0rs., AIR 2010 SC 3762 it has been held by the Supreme Court that powers under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing criminal proceedings have to be exercised very sparingly, with circumspection, that too in very rarest of rare cases, ,,,H—~
