JUDGMENT : Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. 1. The petitioner herein has come up for quashing of the proceeding being Amta P.S. Case no. 77 of 2011 dated 3rd March, 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 505 of 2011, presently pending before the Court of Judicial magistrate Amta Howrah. Opposite party no.2 herein Sri Pranab Chakraborty being erstwhile secretary of Balichak High School lodged a written complaint on 03.03.2021 alleging that the petitioner being the Headmaster of the school, in collusion with other accused persons has misappropriated government money of about 11 lakhs. On the basis of said complaint aforesaid proceeding was initiated and after completion of investigation police has submitted charge sheet against four accused persons, including the present petitioner. 2. Being aggrieved by the said impugned proceeding, petitioner contended that he is a retired Headmaster and had reputable service record of 26 years. His further case is that he joined in the service on 01.10.1982 and retired on 30.04.2009 while posted as Head master in the said school. Petitioner’s contention is that the FIR was lodged after expiry of a period of almost two years, after the retirement of the petitioner from the post of Headmaster and the said FIR reeks of malice and has been lodged with malafide intention. Petitioner’s further contention is that at the time of his retirement on 30.04.2009, he was accorded with all necessary certificate, which shows that school has no claim from him and he had no liability in the school whatsoever and accordingly the release order was issued in his favour on 30.04.2009 and as per resolution of managing committee the petitioner had handed over all charges including records, service books, cash book acquaintance rolls etc. and thereafter the petitioner was accorded with “no liability” certificate signed by District Inspector of Schools on 1st September, 2009 3. Petitioner’s further contention is that no sanction as required under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was obtained prior to taking cognizance of the instant case against the petitioner. Further case of the petitioner is that the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. are absolutely vague and do not point to the guilt of the petitioner. Further case of the petitioner is that the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. are absolutely vague and do not point to the guilt of the petitioner. The seizure list of documents mentioned in the charge-sheet do not point to the guilt of the present petitioner and also does not bring home the essential ingredients of section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code by any stretch of imagination. Infact apart from vague and absurd allegations, there is nothing in the charge-sheet to support the case of the prosecution. Petitioner’s further contention is that the FIR maker has not explained the delay in lodging the FIR and in the absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. A frustrated litigant have initiated the proceeding just to harass the petitioner and such frustrated litigants should not be permitted to fulfill their political agenda by invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. 4. It is further argued on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations levelled in the FIR, even taken in their entirety does not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioner. Mere bald allegations based on feelings and thoughts does not constitute an offence and no useful purpose will be served by allowing the impugned proceeding to continue any further. The charge sheet itself does not disclose the mode in which alleged offence was committed, nor it is clear from the charge sheet whether any wrongful loss was suffered by the school authorities or the petitioner at all gained anything wrongfully during his tenure in the school as Headmaster. Petitioners further case is that the audit as conducted upon the direction passed by this High Court in WPA 21476 of 2022 also suggest that during the whole tenure of the present petitioner there was no such defalcation of funds and records were duly maintained. Minor discrepancies to the effect of non-maintainability of some account books etc. does not suggest to any length that any kind of defalcation of government funds had taken place at any point of time. Petitioner further argued that the Apex Court time and again laid down in catena of judgments that to bring home offence under section 420 of the IPC, intention to cheat from the very beginning is sine qua non to show that guilty mind was there from the very inception. Petitioner further argued that the Apex Court time and again laid down in catena of judgments that to bring home offence under section 420 of the IPC, intention to cheat from the very beginning is sine qua non to show that guilty mind was there from the very inception. Even by scanning the entire materials on record, there is absolutely nothing to show that there was an intention to cheat on the part of the petitioner from the date of his joining at the said school. Petitioner therefore, prayer for quashing the impugned proceeding qua the petitioner. 5. Mr. Suman Dey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party no.2 argued that the petitioner has laid much emphasis upon a “no liability” certificate dated 1st November, 2009, but such certificate for a school teacher means a document issued by the school administration stating that based on their records, the teacher has no outstanding financial or legal dues from school during his tenure at the school. Infact such ‘no liability certificate’ has no relation to the money which is an ill gotten money. He also argued that in the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is that during his tenure, embezzlement of huge amount of government money had taken place and it is very much obvious that such amount must not have any record. 6. He further argued that the statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of the members of the school committee clearly reveals that there are various irregularities on various documents relating to fund of ‘Sarbasikha Mission’ in respect of construction of school building and more so no cash book was maintained in respect of money transaction. The witnesses have also made it clear that during the entire tenure of the petitioner, no audit was done in the said school. He further argued that the question of taking action under section 197 of the Code does not arise in the present context because the offence of cheating or abetting another to cheat has not been done while he is acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official capacity and the proceeding is very much maintainable, without any sanction order as he has committed the offence as an individual and accordingly he prayed for rejection of petitioners prayer. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Dutta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the amount received from ‘Sarbasikha Mission’ has not been utilized properly but utilization certificate was issued and no audit was done since 2001 to 2009-2010. The investigation further reveals that there is no entry of ‘Sarbasikha Mission’ grants in the book of statement maintained by the petitioner who is ex Headmaster. Subsequently the audit was conducted and from the audit report it appears that the register and the books of accounts have not been correctly and properly maintained. All receipts and withdrawal from postal saving bank account/bank have not been properly accounted for and incorporated in the accounts. The school authority does not maintain fixed asset register. Only the general provident fund register was found correct during audit. Therefore if the allegation is taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety ingredients of the offence has been made out against the petitioner accused. He further contended that at the time of considering the application for quashing, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the genuineness, probability or reliability of the allegations. Accordingly, State also prayed that truth will come out only after trial and this is not a fit case where the criminal proceeding can be quashed invoking jurisdiction of the court under section 482 of the Code. 8. I have considered submissions made by both the parties. 9. In Bhajanalal’s case, 1992 (Supp) 1 SCC 335 Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines wherein power under section 482 of the Code for quashing of proceeding should be exercised. These are, where the FIR does not prima facie constitute any offence, does not disclose a cognizable offence justifying investigating by the police, where the allegations 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, where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code and where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance upon the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 10. 10. In the light of above touchstone when I consider the materials placed in connection with the present proceeding, it appears that specific allegation has been attributed against the present petitioner in the FIR, alleging that he and his associates have misappropriated Government money amounting to Rs. 11 lakhs. During investigation the prosecution has also recorded statement of witnesses and the said statements clearly pinpointed that the present petitioner is responsible for defalcation of government money from the school fund by manipulating utilization certificate and other documents and voucher. During investigation police has also seized lot of connected documents in support of prosecution case. In the said backdrop, it cannot be said that there is no specific allegation against the present petitioner. It is well settled that at this stage when the High Court considers petition for quashing criminal proceeding under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected during investigation must be read as they stand and it is only if on the face of the materials that no offence, as alleged, has been made out, then the court may be justified in exercising its jurisdiction to quash. 11. Mr. Mazumder learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner referring the case of Hashmukh Lal D. Vora & another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2022) 15 SCC 164 contended that there are another category of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of High Court can be successfully invoked. Such category of cases are where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. However in the said judgment Apex Court has also reminded that it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the acquisitions made and the cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusations in question. 12. In the light of aforesaid observation if I consider the present proceeding it appears that the petitioner is FIR named and the language of the FIR has already been quoted. 12. In the light of aforesaid observation if I consider the present proceeding it appears that the petitioner is FIR named and the language of the FIR has already been quoted. If the allegation made in the FIR and the materials collected during investigation are taken to be correct, it cannot be said that no specific cognizable offence is disclosed. 13. Needless to say that at this stage I am not inclined to look into the correctness of the allegation made in the FIR. Ex facie the materials available in the Case Diary discloses offence against the petitioner. Now whether the petitioner who is FIR named, had committed the offence or not had to be decided upon trial in the criminal proceeding. It is settled law that the courts interference in criminal proceedings, in exercise of the power under section 482 of the Code is to be made in rare and exceptional cases to give effect to the provisions of the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, the High Court should not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry, whether there is reliable evidence or not and the jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly carefully and with caution. 14. It is no more res integra that the criminal proceeding can be said to be an abuse of the process of the court, to warrant intervention under section 482 of the Code, when the allegations in the FIR do not at all disclose any offence or where there are materials on record from which the court can reasonably arrive at a finding that the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court. In the instant case it appears that the main defence taken by the petitioner is that no liability certificate was issued to him when he retired from the school and long after his retirement the FIR was lodged without having any sanction from the competent authority, in order to malign the petitioner, in public estimation. 15. The prosecution has collected evidence during investigation which includes the statements of the witnesses who said that in a calculated manner the petitioner and his associates have misappropriated the said amount. 15. The prosecution has collected evidence during investigation which includes the statements of the witnesses who said that in a calculated manner the petitioner and his associates have misappropriated the said amount. Now whether such allegations are tainted with malafides or not, it is too early to comment, because the materials collected during investigation can be tested during trial, if the charge is framed against him and on the basis of which alone, the court can come to a conclusion one way or the other on the plea of malafides. Since the documents relied by the petitioners are not part of the evidence, it would not be prudent for this court to quash the impugned proceeding relying upon said document filed as annexure. 16. Investigation in this case has been completed and the report has already been submitted by the investigating agency. Now the question is whether on the basis of materials available in the Case Diary, the trial court will frame charge against the petitioner or not. 17. Having considered the facts and law, in my view this is not a case which warrants interference under section 482 of the Code at this stage. It appears that in matter of this nature, it would have been more appropriate for the petitioner to have availed the remedies provided under the Code at the time of framing charge or at any appropriate subsequent stage and not to have invoked this court’s jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code. 18. CRR 1693 of 2022 thus stands dismissed. Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.