JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the entire proceedings/criminal prosecution in Madhepura Police Station Case No. 260 of 2006 dated 16.10.2006 arising out of complaint Case No. 638 of 2006 dated 13.10.2006. 3. The prosecution case in short is that in the financial year 2005-06 a Health Mela was organized from 29.1.2006 to 31.1.2006 in the premises of BNM Stadium chaired by the petitioner. It has been alleged that all the accused persons in conspiracy with each other has embezzled about five lakhs rupees on purchase of medicines. 4. The petitioner submits that the prosecution is malicious and it has been launched against him and two others, namely, Sri Ganeshi Ram Raman, the DDC and Sri Devendra Kumar, the then Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhepura on the allegations of one private person, namely, Angad Yadav, resident of Laxmipur, Madhepura. The aforesaid Angad Yadav initially filed a complaint under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the I.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura. 5. The petitioner submits that in view of communication received from Union Government vide its letter dated 24.3.2005, the Government of Bihar vide its letter dated 26.5.2007 informed all the District Magistrates and Civil Surgeons that a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- has been allotted to each of the parliamentary constituency for holding Health Mela. 6. Learned counsel further submits that after due advertisement and inviting tender contract for supply of medicines were given to different firms. The supply order was placed by Civil Surgeon. It is also submitted that the petitioner has unblemished career spanning 34 years and this time he has become victim of high level conspiracy. More so, the I.G., Darbhanga in his report dated 13.7.2007 contained in Annexure-14 stated that the allegations against the petitioner is false. The petitioner had filed an application praying. therein to allow him to challenge charge-sheet dated 17.2.2007 and order taking cognizance dated 19.2.2007. 7. Learned counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit stating therein that police during investigation found materials against the petitioner as contained in various paragraphs of the case diary i.e. paragraph nos. 8, 15, 16, 128, 129, 131, 135, 140. It is also stated by him that one of the Medical firm to which order was placed was owned by son of the petitioner. 8, 15, 16, 128, 129, 131, 135, 140. It is also stated by him that one of the Medical firm to which order was placed was owned by son of the petitioner. Furthermore, transactions with the aforesaid firm points that there have been various manipulations. 8. After hearing the parties and going through the materials on record, I am not inclined to quash the prosecution case, charge-sheet and order taking cognizance. The writ petition is dismissed with observation that it would be open to the petitioner to take all these points at the time of framing of charge.