IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45807 of 2007 ARJUN KUMAR son of late Bhatu Prasad, resident of village-/Mohalla- Triloki Nagar (Rasidabad), P.S.-Agamkuan, Dist.-Patna, at present posted as Primary Teacher in Primary School West Paizna, P.S.-Ghoshwari, Dist.- Patna. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shankar Yadav son of Narsingh Yadav,R/o village-Paisna, P.S.- Ghoshwari. Dist.-Patna. ----------- 3. 9.3.2010. Heard Mr.Satya Narayan Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Maya Nand Jha, learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner, while invoking jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., has prayer for quashing of the order dated 30th August, 2007 passed in G.R. No.1099 of 244 by Sri J.Lal, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barh, whereby petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for discharge under section 239 of the Cr. P.C. was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant has filed the present case maliciously due to the reason that prior to the filing of the present case the petitioner had filed a complaint before the S.D.O., Barh, against the informant and one another. He further submits that the allegation in respect of payment of loan amount to the students from the government fund by this petitioner was examined departmentally and the departmental authority has not found any material against this petitioner. On these grounds, he prays for quashing of the impugned order. I have also heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. He opposes the prayer of the petitioner. 2 The petitioner, even after order of cognizance, had approached this court vide Cr. Misc. No.41439 of 2006 and the same was dismissed on 1.2.2007. However, while dismissing the petition, this court had granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points at the time of framing of charge. Accordingly, the petitioner at the stage of charge filed a petition for his discharge and the impugned order has been passed. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. In this case allegation against the petitioner is that he had misappropriated the amounts which were to be paid to the students under the scheme. As per the scheme, the petitioner being a teacher was required to make payment of Rs.167/- to the students but the students were paid only Rs.110/-. The complaint which was filed by the complainant was transferred to the police for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and thereafter first information report vide Ghoshwari P.S. Case No.53 of 2004 was registered on 20.10.2004 for the offences under sections 406, 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. After registering first information report, the police investigated the case and charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken on 14.6.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the order of cognizance and the same was rejected on 1.2.2007 and now the petitioner is before this court challenging the order of rejection of discharge petition. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition stands rejected. Keeping in view the fact that first information report 3 was lodged in the year, 2004, it would not be appropriate to keep the matter pending for a long period. Accordingly, it is desirable to direct the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)