JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar and j. JJ. 1. Five petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have challenged the order dated 15.9.1999 passed by Shri Chandrama Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhagalpur in G. R. No.912 of 1998 arising out of Sultanganj, (Bath) P. S. Case No.114 of 1998. By the said order the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioners. 2. Short fact of the case is that a complaint was filed vide Complaint Case No.597c of 1987 and subsequently the complaint was referred to the police for its registration and investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, first information report vide Sultanganj (Bath) P. S. Case No.114 of 1998 was registered on 20.5.1988 for the offences under sections 406, 409, 468 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code. In the first information report it was alleged that the petitioners, who were Assistant Teachers of High school, Khanpur, Police Station Sultanganj, district Bhagalpur, had illegally collected money from the students and instead of depositing the said amount in the account of the school, they misappropriated the same. The total amount alleged to have misappropriated was alleged Rs.74753/- (Rupees seventy four thousand seven hundred and fifty three only ). The complainant, who had filed the complaint petition, was, at the relevant time, Principal of the High School, Khanpur, Police Station Sultanganj. After the case was registered, the police investigated the same and during investigation the allegation in the first information report was found to be true and, accordingly, a charge sheet vide Charge Sheet No.3 dated 31.1991 was submitted against the accused persons i. e. the petitioners, for the offences under sections 406, 409, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. At the stage of charge a petition for discharge was filed by the petitioners and by order dated 15.9.1999 the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the petition of the petitioners. At the time of discharge a plea was taken by the petitioners that the complaint petition was filed not by an authorized person as contemplated under Article 337 of the Education Code. It was also argued that at the time of filing of the complaint petition, the complainant/informant was divested with the financial power and, as such, he was not authorized to file the present complaint. 3. It was also argued that at the time of filing of the complaint petition, the complainant/informant was divested with the financial power and, as such, he was not authorized to file the present complaint. 3. Aggrieved with the order dated 15.9.1999, whereby the discharge petition was rejected, the petitioners approached this court by filing the present petition. On 2.3.2000, while admitting the case, this Court had directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceedings in G. R. No.912 of 1988/sultanganj (Bath) P. S. Case No.114 of 1988 pending in the court of Shri Chandrama Singh, Ist Class, Bhagalpur shall remain stayed. 4. Shri Ranjan Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the impugned order, submits that the learned Magistrate, while rejecting the discharge petition, has not appreciated the law as well as provision in its right perspective. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on Annexure-3 of the petition, which is a typed copy of the judgment dated 20th November, 1984 passed in Cr. Misc. No.7266 of 1981 by a Bench of this Court. He submits that in similar situation, this Court had examined the provision contained in Article 357 of the Education Code and thereafter, this Court was of the opinion that without sanction of the District Superintendent of Education, the prosecution was unauthorisedly launched in the said case and, accordingly, this Court had set aside the prosecution in the said case. This Court had observed in the said case that prosecution was misconceived and order of cognizance in the said case was set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to certain annexures to the petition particularly annexure-6 to the petition, which is a typed copy of the letter, which was issued by the District Education Officer, Bhagalpur addressed to the accused of the present case, namely, Janardan Prasad Mandal (petitioner no.2 ). He, while referring to Annexure-6 to the petition, submits that even the District Education Officer has made it clear that for launching prosecution against the petitioners, no permission was obtained from him. Accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of the impugned order. He submits that prosecution was maliciously initiated by the then Principal of the School in question. 5. Mr. Suraj Prasad Singh, learned A. P. P. appearing on behalf of the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of the impugned order. He submits that prosecution was maliciously initiated by the then Principal of the School in question. 5. Mr. Suraj Prasad Singh, learned A. P. P. appearing on behalf of the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that whatever defence, which has been taken in the present petition, can be taken at the stage of defence during the trial. He submits that for the offences as alleged, there is no requirement to obtain sanction or permission from any authority. He further submits that any one can set the criminal law into motion. Moreover, he submits that informant of the present case was the Principal of the School and he was well competent to initiate prosecution for misappropriation of the fund of the school. Accordingly, while rejecting the discharge petition, the learned Magistrate has committed no mistake. 6. Besides hearing, learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the materials available on the record. In the present case, initially a complaint was filed by one Nageshwar Prasad Singh, who was Principal of the school in question vide Complaint Case No.597 (C) of 1987. The said complaint petition was referred to the police for investigation and thereafter, first information report vide Sultanganj (Bath) P. S. Case No.114 of 1988 was registered. It is evident that after registering the case, the police thoroughly investigated the same and after collecting sufficient materials, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons. After submission of the charge sheet, when the case arrived at the stage of charge, the petitioners filed the petition for discharge. It need not to be elaborated that at the time of hearing of discharge petition only requirement is to see as to whether prima facie case is made out or not. Moreover, for the purpose of rejecting the discharge petition, there is no requirement to assign detailed reason. However, in the present case, the learned Magistrate has examined the materials in detail and by assigning a reasoned order, has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioners. Moreover, for the purpose of rejecting the discharge petition, there is no requirement to assign detailed reason. However, in the present case, the learned Magistrate has examined the materials in detail and by assigning a reasoned order, has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioners. So far as the judgment on which the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied i. e. Annexure-3 of the petition, after going through the same, it appears that in the said case, the informant/complainant was having no connection with the school rather he was member of the Yuva Chhatra Sangharsh Samiti. Besides this, the Article 357 of the Code which was quoted in the order indicates that in case of misappropriation by the Secretary, Headmaster/principal or any member of the Managing Committee of the School, there was some requirement to obtain permission of the Superintendent of Education. In the present case, the complaint was lodged by the Principal of the school in question. It hardly matter as to whether he was divested with the financial power or not, but over all the Principal of the school was well competent to initiate prosecution in case of misappropriation of school fund/fund collected from the students of the school by Assistant teachers, who are accused in the present case. The accused persons were neither Secretary nor Member of the Managing Committee nor Headmaster/principal of the school in question and as such provision of Article 357 of the Code was not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The judgment on which learned counsel has relied has got no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. In the present case, there were sufficient material to proceed against them and, accordingly, while rejecting the discharge petition, the learned Magistrate has committed no error. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 8. In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay dated 2.3.2000 stands automatically vacated. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the present case remained pending for a long period in this Court, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously and conclude the same as early as possible. 10. 8. In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay dated 2.3.2000 stands automatically vacated. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the present case remained pending for a long period in this Court, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously and conclude the same as early as possible. 10. It goes without saying that any observation made by this court will not prejudice the petitioners case in any manner during the trial.