Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 15.6.2016, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, in connection with Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No. 181 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance for the offences alleged under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others and the case is now pending before the learned Court of ACJM III, Aurangabad.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Aurangabad, as contained in his complaint letter dated 24.4.2010, is that the then Chairman, Zila Parishad, namely, Rupa Devi, in connivance with the concerned Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer, had committed irregularities in various projects, pertaining to repair of canal and other works, whereupon enquiry was conducted and gross irregularities were found.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has though not disputed the discrepancy in the works carried out, pertaining to the aforesaid projects, but has submitted that the work measurement and work completion report was submitted by the Successor Junior Engineer of the petitioner and since the work in question had commenced as per the measurement, submitted by the petitioner, but his deputation at the place in question was cancelled prior to the completion of the work, the petitioner has got no complicity in the alleged occurrence, hence, the order taking cognizance dated 15.6.2016 is bereft of any merit and fit to be set aside qua the petitioner herein.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State has referred to page no. 51 of the present petition, which is a show cause notice, issued by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad to the petitioner, who was then posted as Junior Engineer, Zila Parishad, Aurangabad, to submit that the petitioner had noted the measurement in the measurement book, pertaining to the repair work conducted regarding the canal in question, however, later on, when enquiry was conducted by the Regional Development Officer, Magadh Division, Gaya and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, it was found that in as many as four projects, the work actually done was much less than what had recorded in the measurement book, thus, the petitioner is definitely having complicity in the matter, apart from the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed against the petitioner, wherein, upon investigation, the police has found the case to be true as against the petitioner herein and others as also ample materials are available in the case diary to show the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime, thus, the order dated 15.6.2016, passed by the learned Court of ACJM III, Aurangabad, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against the petitioner & others for the offences alleged, cannot be said to be suffering from any legal infirmity and is in fact just and legal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record as also gone through the FIR in question along with its enclosures. At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not advanced any argument on the issue as to how the materials on record do not, by any stretch of imagination, make out any case against the petitioner herein and as to why the entire criminal proceedings should be quashed, however, on the contrary, it has merely been submitted that since the petitioner had been transferred from the Zila Parishad, Aurangabad, before the conclusion of the work, he has got no role to play in the alleged occurrence, although it has not been disputed that the initial measurement was conducted by the petitioner.

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, acco