JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. S. K. Talukdar, and Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel, for their respective petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. PROSECUTION STORY: 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Dr. Tilak Saikia, District Elementary Education Officer(DEEO), Nalbari, lodged a First Information Report(FIR), on 22.08.2006, before the Officer-in-Charge of Nalbari Police Station, alleging, interalia, that the above named petitioners and others, during the period 1999 to 07.08.2006, criminally conspired to make appointment of elementary school teachers numbering about 436 in Nalbari district of Assam without authority by adopting the means of forgery, manipulation, tampering of documents and showing the appointees as on transfer with post from other places outside the Nalbari district, in consideration of crores of rupees. They also allegedly facilitated drawal of salaries of the illegal appointees. The said First Information Report(FIR) was registered as Nalbari P.S. Case No. 202/2006 and after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheets under Sections 120B/468/420 IPC read with Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(for short, PC Act). The above petitions have come up for consideration when the learned Special Judge, Assam, proceeded/framed charges against the petitioners under Sections 120B/409/468/471 IPC read with Sections 13(1)(c)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act. 3. The above revision petition No. 02/2014 under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (Cr.P.C.) 1973, has been filed by the petitioner, for setting aside the impugned order, dated 27.11.2013, passed by the Court of the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati, in Special Case No. 01 of 2013 whereby the Court below was proceeding to frame charges, amongst others, against the petitioner u/s 120B/409/468/471 IPC read with Section 13(1)(c)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, and further, for quashing of all further proceedings, thereof, against him. 4. In Crl. Pet. No. 920/2013, Crl. Pet. No. 922/2013, and Crl. Pet. No. 923/2013, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the entire proceeding in Special Case No. 01/2013 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Assam and the above impugned order, dated 27.11.2013, passed in the aforesaid case. 5. GROUNDS: In Crl. Rev. Pet. 5. GROUNDS: In Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 02/2014, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order, dated 27.11.2013, passed in Special Case No. 01/2013 and further proceeding therein, inter alia, on the grounds that the materials on record, including the charge-sheet, statement of witnesses, etc., being bereft of any evidence against the petitioner indicating even his remote culpability to the alleged offences, the learned trial Court ought to have discharged the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and therefore, further proceeding with the case would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. In Crl. Pet. No. 920/2013, Crl. Pet. No. 922/2013, and Crl. Pet. No. 923/2013, the petitioners have challenged the order, dated 27.11.2013, passed in Special Case No. 01/2013 and further proceeding with the aforesaid case, basically on the grounds that in regard to the irregularity and illegality in the appointment of teachers and illegal and irregular drawal of salaries in elementary and middle schools of Nalbari district, the Enquiry Committee submitted its repot, on 10.08.2006, whereby the petitioners were acquitted of the charges. According to the petitioners in Crl. Pet. No. 920/2013, the petitioner No. 3 Jatin Goswami retired from service on 30.09.2012. it has been further stated that during investigation, no incriminating document was seized during investigation and that none of the witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has implicated the petitioners with commission of the alleged offences. The petitioners have further stated that whatever they did in their official capacity, they did as per instructions of the superior authorities. 6. ARGUMENTS: I have heard Mr. S. K. Talukdar and Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the petitioners and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam. I have gone through the relevant records including the Case Diary of Nalbari P.S. Case No. 202/2006. The learned counsel for the petitioners have confined their arguments to the grounds cited in the respective petitions. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 02/2014 has drawn the attention to the ratio laid by the Apex Court in the cases of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512 , and Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 394 . Ms. Jahan, learned Addl. Rev. Pet. No. 02/2014 has drawn the attention to the ratio laid by the Apex Court in the cases of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512 , and Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 394 . Ms. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, has submitted that it is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court cannot go into the merits of the case as the petitioners have pleaded in the petitions and that all that the Court is required to see whether a prima facie case is made out against the accuseds. Ms. Jahan further submitted that a bare perusal of the case reveals a clear prima facie case of culpability of the petitioners to the alleged commission of the offences, under which the learned trial Court has framed charges against them and therefore, neither the proceeding including the First Information Report(FIR) nor the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and quashed, as prayed for. 7. APPRECIATION: It is seen that in all the above petitions, the petitioners have prayed to set aside the order, dated 27.11.2013, passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam, at Guwahati, in Special Case No. 01/2013, whereby the learned trial Court having found a prima facie case to go for trial under Sections 120-B/409/468/471 IPC and Sections 13(1)(c)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, had proposed to frame charges against them, who are charge-sheeted by the police and also for quashing the entire proceeding including the First Information Report(FIR), dated 22.08.2006, charge-sheets, dated 12.11.2012 and 10.12.2012. The prosecution story as delineated through the charge-sheet, dated 12.11.2012, and the supplementary charge-sheet, dated 10.12.2012, show that based on a First Information Report(FIR), dated 22.08.2016, lodged by Dr. Tilak Saikia, District Elementary Education Officer(DEEO), Nalbari, whereupon Nalbari P.S. Case No. 202/2006 was registered, the Nalbari P.S. investigated into the allegations of large-scale illegal appointments of elementary school teachers, numbering 436, which was, in fact, suspected to have crossed 2000 mark, in different educational blocks of Nalbari district by means of forgery, manipulation, fabrication, tampering and showing the appointments as on transfer with post from outside the district, allegedly on consideration of a huge sum of money to a few crores of rupees. The aforesaid First Information Report(FIR) was lodged, after a departmental inquiry conducted by a committee headed by a Deputy Secretary, Education Department, Assam, which in its report, implicated the petitioners and others. After completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheets, aforementioned, against the petitioners. 8. It is pertinent to mention that at the stages of discharge and charge framing under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C., the Court is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken on their face value, prima facie disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offences and if not, the accused is to be discharged under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. At this stage, the Court is not expected to make a roving enquiry in the pros and cons of the whole prosecution case. It is sufficient if prima facie case is established by some materials placed before it for consideration. 9. In Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 394 , the Apex Court held as follows: “15. Chapter XVIII of the Code lays down the procedure for trial before the Court of Session, pursuant to an order of commitment under Section 209 of the Code. Section 227 contemplates the circumstances whereunder there could be a discharge of an accused at a stage anterior in point of time to framing of charge under Section 228. it provides that upon consideration of the record of the case, the documents submitted with the police report and after hearing the accused and the prosecution, the court is expected, nay bound to decide whether there is “sufficient ground” to proceed against the accused and as a consequence thereof either discharge the accused or proceed to frame charge against him.” 10. The Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512 , summarized the exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. and laid the following principles, as herein quoted below: (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.” 11. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.” 11. On perusal of the impugned order, dated 27.11.2013, passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam, in Special Case No. 01/2013 and the materials available on record, it transpires that the names of all the petitioners appeared in the First Information Report(FIR), dated 22.08.2006, lodged by the DEEO, Nalbari, and after completion of investigation in the charge-sheets. It is further noticed that the learned Special Judge, Assam, after having recorded to the effect that “In view of the above discussion and the materials available in the record as stated above I found a prima facie case against all the accuseds to go for trial u/s. 120B/409/468/471 IPC and Section 13(1)(c)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) PC Act” and accordingly, charges aforementioned were framed and read over to the petitioners, namely, Nagen Chandra Boro, Madhusudhan Basumatary, Abul Hussain, Amulya Choudhury, and Jatin Goswami, on 19.12.2013, while on 04.01.2014, the charges were framed and read over to the other petitioners, namely, Tarini Mazumdar, Samin Das, Golok Chandra Deka. 12. After going through the materials placed by the prosecution before the learned Special Judge, Assam, it cannot be said that there is no ground for presuming that the petitioners have not committed the offences under the aforesaid provisions of law. The acceptability of the materials to fasten culpability on the petitioners being a matter of trial, in the backdrop of the prima facie materials available on record, the petitioners cannot reasonably claim discharge of the aforementioned criminal charges which pertain to alleged interalia, offence of illegal appointments of hundreds of teachers affecting as a whole, the society and the State. 13. So far the prayer for quashing of the entire proceeding in Special Case No. 01/2013, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is very relevant to refer to the noting of the principles laid down in State of Haryana Vs. 13. So far the prayer for quashing of the entire proceeding in Special Case No. 01/2013, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is very relevant to refer to the noting of the principles laid down in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, held in the case of CBI Hyderabad (Supra) that (Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 194 ), as follows: “23. ….. An FIR or a complaint may be quashed if the allegations made therein are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.” 14. In Mahabir Prashad Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2000) 8 SCC 115 , the Apex Court held: The law on the subject is very clear. In State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1988) 4 SCC 655 it has been held that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. It has been held that at an initial stage a court should not embark upon an inquiry as to whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. Again in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 this Court has held that the power of quashing criminal proceedings must be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It has been held that the court would not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. It has been held that the extraordinary or inherent powers did not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. 15. It has been held that the extraordinary or inherent powers did not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. 15. As stated above, when there are prima facie materials available to show culpability of the petitioners and many others in the illegal appointment of elementary school teachers numbering 436, in Nalbari district of Assam, covering the period from 1999 to 2006, the learned trial Court should be allowed to try the whole prosecution case and that of the defense side to reach a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt whether they are guilty or innocent. A criminal trial cannot be quashed for the reason that the petitioners were exonerated in departmental enquiry, although the FIR shows that they were implicated with the commission of the alleged offences in the departmental enquiry conducted by a Committee. Therefore, the aforesaid allegations being supported by prima facie evidence on record showing involvement of the petitioners therein having greater interest of the State, this Court is of the considered opinion that the above proceedings cannot be quashed as prayed. CONCLUSION: 16. In view of the above reasons, the above criminal petitions being Crl. Rev. Pet. 02/2014, Crl. Rev. Pet. 920/2013, Crl. Rev. Pet. 922/2013, and Crl. Rev. Pet. 923/2013, stand dismissed. 17. The petitioners shall appear before the Court of learned Special Judge, Assam at Guwahati, on 06.05.2017 or on any other subsequent working day, if the aforesaid date falls a holiday to receive further instructions. 18. Send back the LCRs along with a copy of this judgment & order. 19. Petitions stand disposed of.