ORDER : Heard Mr. Saibal Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vijyant Verma, learned J.C. to G. P.-II. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 09 of 2016 which has been instituted for the offence punishable under Section 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the work of the construction of the school building has been completed for which necessary no objection certificate has been given by the authorities. Learned counsel submits that without giving a prior show cause notice a First Information Report has been instituted against the petitioner. It has been stated that the entire amount which was withdrawn by the petitioner has been utilized as the building has been properly constructed and there is no allegation against the petitioner of committing the defalcation. Learned counsel submits that the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Superintendent of Education categorically reveals that the Department does not have any grievance against the petitioner. It has thus been submitted that in view of the aforesaid fact the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. Vijyant Verma, learned J.C. to G.P.-II, has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has relied on the counter affidavit filed by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Saraikella who had found the allegation against the petitioner to be true. It has been stated that the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Saraikella has made a mention about the District Superintendent of Education, Saraikella being the competent authority to disclose about the involvement of the petitioner. 5. It appears from the First Information Report that the work was sanctioned for the period 2010-2011 and the amount was sanctioned on 20.07.2012 which was received in the account of the school 01.10.2012. The period of completion of work was indicated as four months. It further appears that the major portion of the amount has been withdrawn from the account by the petitioner and in spite of expiry of more than two and half years the construction of the building could not be completed. The period of completion of work was indicated as four months. It further appears that the major portion of the amount has been withdrawn from the account by the petitioner and in spite of expiry of more than two and half years the construction of the building could not be completed. Although a no objection certificate has been issued by the competent authority after the construction work has been completed but that by itself could not divest the petitioner from being prosecuted in a criminal offence as in spite of the fact that the work was to be completed within a period of four months sometime during the period 2012-13 the work was finally completed in the year 2016 whereas the major portion of the amount has been withdrawn by the petitioner way back in the year 2013 itself. 6. Such circumstance does point to the guilt of the petitioner. The subsequent statement made by the District Superintendent of Education in the counter affidavit is not of much help to the petitioner as perhaps the District Superintendent of Education has merely concentrated on the fact that the school building has finally been constructed without going into the details with respect to the amount which was withdrawn by the petitioner and the time which was taken by the petitioner in completion of the project in question. Such circumstance, therefore, does not necessitate this Court to interfere in the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner and accordingly, having found no merit in this application the same is, hereby, dismissed.