Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.9.2015, passed by the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner herein in connection with Kuchaikot P.S. Case No. 239 of 2014.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the Block Development Officer, as stated in his written complaint dated 25.9.2014, is that for the financial years 2006 and 2007, a sum of Rs. 8,40,000/- was made available under the Sarv Siksha Abhiyan to the Rampur Khareya Uee Primary School, Kuchaikot, District-Gopalganj for construction of building, whereafter the principal of the school i.e. the petitioner herein and the Secretary of the School Education Committee had withdrawn the said amount, but the building in question was not constructed, although the building ought to have been constructed by the year 2008.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner had withdrawn the money from the Bank on various occasions, but he had handed over the same to the Secretary of the Vidhyalaya Siksha Committee, to the brick kiln owner, to the contractor and others and moreover, now the building in question has also stood constructed, hence the order taking cognizance dated 24.9.2015 be quashed.

4. Per contra, the learned APP for the State has referred to the materials available on record and has submitted that the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence is apparent, inasmuch as he has admitted to have withdrawn money meant for construction of the school building in question, but had failed to get the same constructed within time. It is also submitted that even if, it is assumed that now, the building has been constructed, but still the issue regarding temporary / permanent defalcation of the school building funds would be alive and the petitioner is apparently guilty of the same. It is next submitted that since the learned Trial Court has already framed charges against the petitioner and against one another co-accused person, by an order dated 20.9.2017, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate XVI, Gopalganj in connection with Trial No. 1008 of 2017 (arising out of Kuchaikote P.S. No. 239 of 2014), the present petition has been rendered infructuous.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record and gone through the FIR in question as also its enclosures. At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not advanced any argument either on the issue as to how no case is made out upon a bare reading of the FIR in question or as to why the entire criminal proceedings should be quashed and merely, it has been stated that he had withdrawn money and given the same to other persons for the purposes of construction of the school building, which, in any view of the matter, cannot be a plausible explanation for the illegalities committed by him.

6. It is a well-settled law that power of quashing an FIR should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare case' and that too only where allegations levelled in the FIR and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence or where the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same, no prudent person can ever reach to a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is equally a well-settled law that the Court should not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences inasmuch the police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter-XIV thereof to investigate into cognizance offences. Moreover, while examining an FIR, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an i