IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.37609 of 2011 Jaimangal Prasad Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 2 12.12.2011 Petitioner Jaimangal Prasad, J.E. has filed instant petition for quashing of FIR of Sheikhpura P.S. Case No.329 of 2011 wherein apart from petitioner others also stood as accused. So far allegation relating to petitioner is concerned, that is enumerated under second para of the FIR wherein for construction of boundary wall of a grave yard standing over survey plot no.669 there has been preparation of site plan, preparation at measurement book and further there has been withdrawal of Rs.4,30,947/- with regard to Work No.8/09-10. The aforesaid project was further taken up without ascertaining the fact whether during last five years, any project was taken relating to that very project. Was taken up or not. From the written report it is also evident that earlier project no.3/08-09 was sanctioned for the aforesaid purpose having estimate of Rs.4,62,500/- and the same was siphoned by having erection of boundary wall around Khesra No.410 and Khesra No.387, a private grave yard. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent and under misconception of fact he has been made as an accused. Also submitted that, so far 2 item no.8/09-10 is concerned, neither the work has begun nor any amount has been released, therefore, there is no question of misappropriation of the government money. Also submitted that during preparation of estimate of item no.8/09-10, petitioner has simply recommended that the boundary wall of five inch should be converted into ten inch width and nothing more. So far item no.3/08-09 is concerned, that work had already been completed. So submitted that in the aforesaid background there happens to be no mistake, misappropriation, embezzlement of government exchequer at the hands of the petitioner. At the other hand the learned A.P.P. opposed and submitted that whatever grounds have been raised on behalf of the petitioner that is a matter of trial. The FIR has been registered just two months earlier and it happens to be at its nascent stage. Whether the High Court can exercise extraordinary power for quashing of the FIR at the present moment, that has already been discussed and answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in 2006(1) SCC (Cri.) 324 as well as 2007(14) SCC 497 negating the same. As such, prayer raised on behalf of the petitioner for the present appears to be premature and is accordingly rejected. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)