JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the Opposite Party-State. 3. The petitioners have filed the present criminal miscellaneous petition for quashing of the First Information Report in Dumka Town P.S. Case No.118 of 2020 instituted under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and the entire criminal prosecution in connection with the aforesaid F.I.R., presently pending in the court of C.J.M., Dumka, as the same is completely vague disclosing no criminal liability against the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and no case is made out against the petitioners and therefore, instant application has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. 5. The learned A.P.P. appearing for the Opposite Party-State submitted that the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. and as per the counter affidavit filed in the present case, a number of witnesses have been examined in the present case during investigation and they have supported the prosecution case and the investigation is still going on. Learned A.P.P. referred to the F.I.R. and the allegations made against the petitioners and submitted that no case for quashing of F.I.R. is made out. There is allegation of defalcation of government money in the instant case and accordingly, at this stage of the case, no interference is called for. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the F.I.R. involved in the present case has been instituted on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Collector, District Legal Branch, Dumka as contained in letter dated 05.03.2020 in which the enquiry committee has found that the services of accused Manoj Kumar Sah as Clerk in Project Girls High School, Kathikund and Santosh Kumar Mandal, Clerk in Project Girls High School, Gopikandar was illegally recognized and the orders for payment of the salaries were also issued and further Rs.49,53,731/- was withdrawn from the Treasury, Dumka for payment as salary to the aforesaid two accused persons. The Petitioner No.1 namely, Shashi Bhushan Srivastava was the then Head Clerk and the Petitioner No. 2 namely, Md. The Petitioner No.1 namely, Shashi Bhushan Srivastava was the then Head Clerk and the Petitioner No. 2 namely, Md. Iftekhar was a Clerk in the office of the District Education Officer, Dumka who played active role in committing the alleged offences. On account of the nature of allegations as made in the F.I.R. which is based on an enquiry report, F.I.R. has been registered under Sections 409, 420,467,468,471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and thus conspiracy is also alleged in the present case and the case is still under investigation. Moreover, as per the counter affidavit, during investigation, the statements of various witnesses have been recorded who have supported the prosecution case and as per the submission of the learned counsel for the State, the investigation is still going on. 7. In the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 = 1992 Cr.L.J. 527 (State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors.), it has been held in Para-102 as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the nature of allegations made against the petitioners in the F.I.R. and also the fact that the case is still under investigation, this Court finds that the case of the petitioners does not fall under any of the broad criteria laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. 9. This Court is of the considered view that no case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the F.I.R. is made out. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is hereby dismissed. 10. 9. This Court is of the considered view that no case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the F.I.R. is made out. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is hereby dismissed. 10. However, it is observed that dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the case of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever and it will be open to the petitioners to take all the points which have been raised in the present petition as well as any other point which may be available to the petitioners before the learned court below at the appropriate stage in accordance with law. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 12. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is closed.