IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41168 of 2007 CHANDI PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE BALDEO PRASAD SINGH, R/O MOHALLA- OFFICER’S COLONY, MIRCHAI BARI, P.S.- KATIHAR SAHAYAK, DISTRICT- KATIHAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 26/03/2010 Heard the parties. The petitioner prays for quashing of the entire proceeding arising out of Katihar (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 257 of 2007 dated 5.6.2007 registered under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar. The FIR was lodged by the District Superintendent of Education, Katihar in which it was alleged that during the financial year 1991-92 financial irregularity was found in which certain defalcation was committed. It was to the tune of Rs. 1081.10/-. This amount was allegedly misappropriated by the Headmaster of the school, namely, the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in course of audit related to the period 1987-88 the alleged defalcation was found. It is further submitted that no case of defalcation and misappropriation is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner has already been retired in the year 1993 from the service and he is physically unable even to sign the papers. Due to weak health he is not in a position to 2 sustain prolong prosecution. It has further been submitted that on merit also no offence is made out against the petitioner because the audit report has not specifically blamed the petitioner for the alleged misappropriation. The petitioner prays for quashing of the entire prosecution which has resulted from Katihar (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 257 of 2007 under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. If a case is lodged then it has to be investigated into and the investigation has to be carried out in the manner prescribed under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigation can only be interfered with in exceptional circumstances. The instant case relates to defalcation of government money so the investigation cannot be quashed. In the result, I am of the view that this application is of without merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise his defence at the appropriate stage. avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)