Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. In the present criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 22 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 56 of 2014 registered u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal. 3. The FIR, which was instituted by the opposite party No. 2, discloses that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner No. 1 was posted as Medical Officer-in-Charge, Subdivision Hospital, Rajmahal, whereas the petitioner No. 2 was under the employment of petitioner No. 1 in his private capacity and he was supplying Khichdi and medicines to delivery patients and beside this he was also doing the work of building, repairing and miscellaneous work. It has been alleged that on transfer of petitioner No. 1 from Subdivision Hospital, Rajmahal to Sadar Hospital, Chatra in the month of July, 2012, the informant was given charge of Subdivision Hospital, Rajmahal on 12.1.2013 and he was subsequently made Drawing and Disbursing Officer on 16.1.2013. It has been alleged that in the meantime against the vouchers submitted by petitioner No. 2, the petitioner No. 1 before being relieved issued cheques in spite of fund not being available in the different bank accounts of NRHM. It has also been alleged that on account of committing forgery and fraud, the said cheques were encashed and unauthorizedly deposited in the bank. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact after the transfer of the petitioner No. 1, the informant was demanding illegal gratification from the petitioner No. 2 for clearing his dues. He has further submitted that this matter was complained before the Vigilance Bureau, Jharkhand, Ranchi and a trap was led and the informant was caught red handed, accepting bribe from the petitioner No. 2. He has further submitted that after the informant was released from jail, he lodged the present FIR on 25.1.2014 against the petitioners making bald allegations against the petitioners only with a view to create his defence and to prevent the petitioner No. 2 to give evidence in the trial of the vigilance case which has been lodged against the informant. He has further submitted that after the informant was released from jail, he lodged the present FIR on 25.1.2014 against the petitioners making bald allegations against the petitioners only with a view to create his defence and to prevent the petitioner No. 2 to give evidence in the trial of the vigilance case which has been lodged against the informant. He has further submitted that in fact the informant himself also issued some cheques and whatever cheques issued by the petitioner No. 1 was on account of discharge of his official duty. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that investigation is still going on and it would not be justifiable to interfere at this stage. He has further submitted that a perusal of the FIR reveals that both the petitioners in connivance with each other got the cheques issued against the voucher submitted by the petitioner No. 2. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the records, I find that on 25.1.2014 the present FIR was instituted against the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code. A perusal of FIR further reveals that petitioner No. 2 used to issue vouchers and the petitioner No. 1 on the basis of said vouchers used to issue cheques and there is a specific averment made in the written report with respect to the connivance and conspiracy of the petitioners in misusing their position. It further appears from the submission made by the learned counsel for the State that the investigation is continuing and at the threshold of initiation of the criminal proceeding, this Court will be disinclined to interfere by invoking the powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. As regards issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners, which has been included in the main criminal miscellaneous petition, on the basis of amendment petition (I.A No. 4077 of 2014), which was allowed by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the said order is illegal and same has been issued without any basis. 8. However from perusal of the I.A. No. 4077 of 2014 as well as from submission of the petitioners, I do not find any illegality which has been brought to the notice of this Court with respect to issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest. 8. However from perusal of the I.A. No. 4077 of 2014 as well as from submission of the petitioners, I do not find any illegality which has been brought to the notice of this Court with respect to issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest. Hence the prayer for quashing the order by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners is also not tenable. 9. Consequent to the discussions made above, I find no merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 10. However, the petitioners are at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedies provided under law. Petition dismissed.