Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.- This petition has been filed under section 482 CrPC to quash the order dated 7.2.2004 passed by VIth' Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 22, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No. 155/2004 arising out of Crime Case No. 120/2002 for offences pun­ishable under section 406/201 IPC, P.S. Karaundi Kala, District Sultanpur (State v. Keshav Pratap Singh) and also entire crimi­nal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid crime number including the charge-sheet No. 8 dated 16.1.2004. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the pe­titioner as well as learned Additional Gov­ernment Advocate. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2. 3. The case is quashing for charge-sheet, and it was found likely to be infructuous because no interim stay order has been passed by this Court staying the proceed­ings of the case pending in the Trial Court. Counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 which was taken on re­cord, but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Undisputed facts of the case are that petitioner is Principal in 10th Class Standard School which is Government Aided School and he comes in the category of public servant. 5. A complaint was made in 1995 against the petitioner in the Government with respect to misappropriation and em­bezzlement in distribution of scholarship amongst the students who were entitled of it. After inquiry in the same by the Vigi­lance Department, an FIR was lodged by Sri Ramtej Verma, Inspector of U.P. Vigi­lance Department, Faizabad on 3.3.2002 against the petitioner for the offence under section 409 IPC and vide Crime No. 120/2002 at P.S. Karaundi Kala, District Sultanpur, case was registered against the petitioner. During the course of investiga­tion of the case, section 201 IPC was also added as sufficient evidence was found against the petitioner that with the inten­tion of screening himself from the legal punishment and not giving the correct in­formation to the Investigating Agency, he had got disappeared the record of the school about distribution of the scholarship amongst the students who were entitled for the same. After completion of the investi­gation, charge-sheet No. 8 dated 16.1.2004 was submitted in the Court of VIth Addi­tional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur against the petitioner for the offence under section 409/201 IPC and the Court had taken cognizance of the same vide order dated 7.2.2004. 6. After completion of the investi­gation, charge-sheet No. 8 dated 16.1.2004 was submitted in the Court of VIth Addi­tional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur against the petitioner for the offence under section 409/201 IPC and the Court had taken cognizance of the same vide order dated 7.2.2004. 6. This petition has been filed pro­ceedings of above case and challenging the order of cognizance taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate mainly on the ground that petitioner is Principal of a Government Aided School and covered with the definition of public servant. As per section 16(g) and 16(h) of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 sub­section (3)(ka) a Principal/Head Master or Teacher would not be removed/dis­missed/terminated without prior written approval/sanction of the District Inspector of the Schools. Hence, sanction was re­quired for prosecution of the petitioner under section 197 Cr.P.C., but no such writ­ten sanction/approval has been taken by the respondents before filing the charge-sheet. It was argued that section 197 CrPC provides that a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been commit­ted by him while acting of purporting to act in discharge of official duty no Court shall take cognizance of such offence ex­cept with the previous sanction of the Gov­ernment, hence the charge-sheet submitted against him and cognizance taken by the learned ACJM deserves to be quashed. It was further stated in Para No. 16 of the petition that two students namely Anuj and Ramesh have received the poor boys fund, but under the connivance of Shiv Shanker Singh who was annoyed with the petitioner, they have made false statement before the Investigating Officer denying the receipt of the scholarship and about rest four students, in Para Nos. 14 and 15, it is stated that they were not eligible for the scholarship. Learned Additional Govern­ment Advocate argued that some of the students received scholarship and they were wrongly denying receipt of the same under the pressure of someone, it is a mat­ter of fact to be decided by evidence to be led during the course of the trial. Other four students were not entitled for the scholarship, again this matter is to be seen by evidence to be adduced why they did not fell in the category of the students who are entitled for the scholarship. Other four students were not entitled for the scholarship, again this matter is to be seen by evidence to be adduced why they did not fell in the category of the students who are entitled for the scholarship. Once they have been held entitle for the scholarship and the amount has been disbursed and deposited in the account of the school, now petitioner can challenge their entitlement, it is also to be seen. Further from the contents of the FIR, it reveals that petitioner has withdrawn the amount from the account which was deposited for the purpose of disbursing the scholarship. How and where he utilized that amount, it is also to be explained by him during the course of trial. These matters relates to the defence of the accused which would have to be inves­tigated at the trial stage. His prosecution without sanction can proceed or not with­out ascertainment of these facts, cannot be decided at the initial stage of taking cogni­zance in the matter after filing the charge-sheet. In L.K. Jain's case, 2005 Crl.J. 5068 reported in the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the question as to whether an order of sanction would be found essential would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It was further held that sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecution in every case is not mandatory and condition precedent for maintainability of the prosecution against a public servant. 7. The prosecution sanction is only a protection against vexatious prosecution of the public servant. The question whether a particular prosecution is vexatious or not can only be decided at the trial stage based on the contentions of the parties and not at the initial stage of taking cognizance of an alleged offence against a public servant. 8. In State of Kerala v. V. Padinanabhan Nair, 1999 (39) ACC 318 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that for offence under section 409 IPC sanction un­der section 197 of the Code is not a condi­tion precedent. 8. In State of Kerala v. V. Padinanabhan Nair, 1999 (39) ACC 318 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that for offence under section 409 IPC sanction un­der section 197 of the Code is not a condi­tion precedent. With reference to two cases i.e. Shree Kantiah Ramayya Munnipalli v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 287 and also Amrik Singh v. State, AIR 1955 SC 309 it is held that it is not every offence committed by a pubic servant which re­quire sanction for prosecution under sec­tion 197 of the Code nor even every act done by him while he is actually engaged in performance of his official duty. In case Harihar Prasad v. State of Bihar,5 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is no part of the duty of a public servant, while discharging his official duties, to enter into a criminal conspiracy or to indulge in criminal mis­conduct. Want of sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is, therefore,' no bar. It was also a case before the Hon'ble Apex Court under section 409 IPC read with section 120-B, IPC. 9. In present case earlier on behalf of prosecution department sanction was ap­plied, but certain objections were raised by the authority in granting sanction. Later on, on the advise as petitioner is Principal of private institute and his appointment is made by committee of management found as he may be removed by the committee of management so provision of section 197 Cr.P.C. are not applicable. 10. From the above all discussions, it is clear that so far this case is concerned, it can be proceeded further against the ac­cused-applicant even without getting any sanction from the competent authority. It will be decided on merit at final stage of the trial and requirement of sanction under section 197 of the Code is there or not. In these facts and circumstances, petition un­der section 482 CrPC has no force and li­able to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition is hereby dismissed. Inform the Trial Court concerned. Petition Dismissed.