Judgment : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court on presumption and assumption that somebody has involved in misappropriation. There is no document to show that the proposed accused forged vouchers and documents in order to obtain money illegally. Unless there are certain material details available before this Court, this Court cannot direct the police to enquire into the matter. 2. Nowadays, it has become a fashion to throw allegations against persons and want to subject the proposed accused for enquiry unnecessarily. The criminal jurisdiction is not meant for wrecking vengeance or put a person unnecessarily into enquiry. Therefore, the petition requires dismissal. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the matter at length and when this Court is not inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner and started dictating the order and even during the diction, the learned counsel for the petitioner unfairly interfered with. When this Court passed order dismissing the Criminal Original Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner observed that the dismissal is unfair. The said statement amounts to contempt of Court and therefore, this Court suo motu intends to initiate contempt proceedings against Mr. Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner. However, as he expressed unconditional apology, this Court is not inclined to proceed further.