Order : Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of First Information Report dated 26.08.2011 alongwith entire criminal proceeding which has been lodged against the petitioner under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Chhatarpur P.S. Case No.118 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No.1467 of 2011. 2. The facts, which are relevant in this case, in short, is that an F.I.R. was lodged on 26.08.2011 against the petitioner at the instance of one Braj Bhushan Prasad, Para Teacher of upgraded Middle School Jolah Khap, Chhatarpur, District Palamau who had filed a written complaint before the Sub Divisional Officer, Chhatarpur, Palamau on 26.08.2011 and the same was forwarded to the Officer Incharge, Chhatarpur Police Station by Sub Divisional Officer, Chhatarpur for taking necessary action into the matter. The prosecution case relates to misappropriation of government fund in payment of honorarium of parateachers of Chhatarpur Block wherein it has been alleged that Ramashish Prasad, Block Education Extension Officer cum Coordinator, Block Resources Centre, Chhatarpur (ii) Shailesh Kumar Singh, Accountant (iii) Ajeet Kumar (iv) Abhay Kumar Singh, Para Teacher, Girls Middle School, Namudag all connived with each other in misappropriation of government fund relating to payment of honorarium to parateachers by making inflated payment to non Para Teacher to the tune of several lakhs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and at relevant point of time, he was posted as District Superintendent of Education Cum District Programme Officer, Palamau and he being the head of the office of Elementary Education including Primary and Middle Schools within the District of Palamau was under a statutory obligation to disburse and suballot the funds received by him from the Head Office i.e. State Project Director, Ranchi under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme in the bank account of all the twelve blocks including Chhatarpur Block in the District of Palamau. It is further submitted that all the 12 Blocks were having bank accounts in the joint name of the respective Block Education Extension Officer and the Accountants and similarly in Chhatarpur Block, the Bank Account was in the name of Ramashish Prasad, Block Education Extension Officer and Shailesh Kumar Singh, the Accountant of Chhatarpur Block and it was the joint responsibility of the Block Education Extension Officer and the Accountant to make payment of honorarium to the genuine and working parateachers of the Block after physical verification of the parateachers concerned on the basis of school attendance register and other relevant records. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner in the capacity of District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Officer, Palamau exercises his supervisory jurisdiction only and in no case, the petitioner had any official obligation for directly making payment to any of the parateachers and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, this petitioner had any role in forging of cheques or in making payment to fake persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had taken all necessary actions against guilty persons prior to lodging of F.I.R. and therefore there is no connivance on his part and as such no prima facie case is made out. He further submits that the petitioner has no connivance or role in misappropriation of funds and as such the impugned order dated 05.12.2015 is not sustainable in the eye of law and is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the aforesaid submissions, the F.I.R. dated 26.08.2011, charge-sheet dated 06.11.2015 and order taking cognizance dated 05.12.2015 longwith the entire criminal proceeding should be quashed. 4. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the prayer and argued that no ground of malicious prosecution or vengeance has been brought on record nor the petitioner has been able to discard prima facie materials against him. He further submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of misappropriation of funds and prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and there is sufficient material against him. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the order taking cognizance is fully justified and as such the instant application is fit to be rejected. 5. He further submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of misappropriation of funds and prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and there is sufficient material against him. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the order taking cognizance is fully justified and as such the instant application is fit to be rejected. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties and from the records of the case, the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceedings, this Court is of the view that the same cannot be quashed at this stage. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mosiruddin Munshi v. Mohd. Siraj & Anr.; (2014) 14 SCC 29 in Para 6 held that : “The legal position with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court for quashing the first informant report is now well settled. It is not necessary for us to delve deep there into as the propositions of the law have been stated by the Court in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta in the following terms:(SCC p.523, para 15) “15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are: (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly, if the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.” In the case of State of Haryana & Ors. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.” In the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the issue fell before the Apex Court as to when the criminal proceeding can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Court held as under in paragraphs 68, 71 and 103 of the said Judgment: “68. Mr Chidambaram took a strong objection stating that these untested allegations are introduced only to prejudice the court and, therefore, the court should refrain from considering these allegations. We may straightway say that we do not take note of these new allegations as we are not called upon at this stage to embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the first information report are reliable or not and thereupon to render a finding whether any of the allegations is proved. These are matters which can be examined only by the concerned court after the entire materials are placed before it on a thorough investigation. 71. While Mr. Rajinder Sachar and Mr. Garg took much pain to show that the reasons given by the High Court in respect of each of the instances are not legally sustainable, Mr. Parasaran submitted a tabular statement by listing out each of the instances of the alleged corruption indicted in the complaint, the explanation given in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit related thereto and the reply in the rejoinder and urged that the allegations in the FIR are nothing but a conglomeration of calumny and falsehood. As the entire matter stands only at the stage of the registration of the case and the investigation has not at all proceeded with on account of the order of stay granted by the High Court, we do not intend or propose to examine the truth or otherwise of each of the instances in snippet form and thereafter string them together and express any opinion either way, since in our view any such opinion may affect the case of either party or cripple the course of investigation. 103. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Amanullah v. State of Bihar; (2016) 6 SCC 699 held as under: “A careful reading of the material placed on record reveals that the learned CJM took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused persons after a perusal of the case diary, charge-sheet and other material placed before the court. The cognizance was taken, as a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons. It is well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court should not get into the merits of the case made out by the police, in the charge-sheet filed by them, with a view to calculate the success rate of prosecution in that particular case. At this stage, the court's duty is limited to the extent of finding out whether from the material placed before it, the offence alleged therein against the accused is made out or not with a view to proceed further with the case.” The Hon'ble Apex Court in another case Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar; (2014) 10 SCC 663 held as under: “In proceedings instituted on the criminal complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivoulous. It is well settled that the power under Section 482 CrPC should be sparingly invoked with circumspection, it should be exercised to see that the process of law is not abused or misused. The settled principle of law is that at the stage of quashing the complaint/FIR, the High Court is not to embark upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or the genuineness of the allegations made therein.” 6. The settled principle of law is that at the stage of quashing the complaint/FIR, the High Court is not to embark upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or the genuineness of the allegations made therein.” 6. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and the documents available on record, I am of the view that no ground of malicious prosecution or vengeance has been brought on record nor the petitioner has been able to discard the prima facie materials against them. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the settled principles of law, judicial pronouncements discussed above, I do not find any merit in the instant criminal miscellaneous petition and accordingly the same stands dismissed. The trial court is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all such points at the appropriate stage.