The court emphasized that at the stage of considering an application for discharge, a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter is not permissible and that the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution.

1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’) the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 27.06.2005 passed in connection with Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 31 of 1996 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 202 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Porahat at Chaibasa has rejected the petition filed for discharge under Section 239 of the Code.

2. The facts of the case, which is relevant for the proper appreciation of the issue involved in this case, in short, is that at the instance of the informant-the Circle Officer, Manoharpur, West Singhbhum, the aforesaid case was instituted on 27.07.1996 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420/34, 109 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code on the allegation that after receiving an allegation petition, the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum directed the District Welfare Officer, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa to make an enquiry in respect of the allegations made by one Dr. Rajendra Prasad Singh in his letter dated 04.02.1992 and on the basis of the report submitted by the District Welfare Officer after enquiry, it was transpired that St. Augustin College, Manoharpur had received fund from Government in respect of tuition fee, examination fee and other fess for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students and for the same period, the authority also received grant from Welfare Department in respect of tuition fees payable to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students. Thus, double funds were received by the College. By letter dated 26.08.1994, the said Enquiry Officer directed the Principal of the college to refund the tuition fees realized from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students within a month and the balance amount, which could be refunded to those students, should be deposited/ returned to Welfare Department. After the said direction, the Principal of the college issued notice to those students and requested them to receive the amount of the period 06.06.1994 to 30.06.1994. It is alleged that the Principal had received those amounts from two different sources in violation of the rules, which is a serious offence and the college maintained 2-3 types of account books for the said purpose and without the approval of the state government, the Principal of the said college by cheating received Rs. 1,37,840/-. The Enquiry Officer found the involvement of these petitioners and other accused persons, who were either the employees or the members of Governing body during the relevant period in the alleged offence and responsible for the misappropriation and defalcation of the amount. In the F.I.R. several documents were annexed showing allegation of cheating and misappropriation of money.

3. It appears from the record that after investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners and other accused persons, thereafter, the court took cognizance of the offence. At the stage of framing of charge, petitions under Section 239 of the Code were filed by the accused persons for their discharge but the court below finding prima facie case and grave suspicion rejected their prayer for discharge. It further appears that at the instance of the petitioners and other accused persons, several Criminal Writs bearing nos. W.P. (Cr.) No. 44 of 2005, W.P. (Cr.) No. 81 of 2005 and W.P. (Cr.) No. 102 of 2005 were preferred in this Court but above W.Ps. (Cr.) were disposed of by this Court vide orders dated 17.02.2005, 24.03.2005 and 31.03.2005 with direction to the court concerned to supply the copy of police papers and other documents as provided under Section 207 of the Code and thereafter proceed for framing of the charge in accordance with law. Thereafter again, petitions were filed by the petitioners under Section 239 of the Code in the court below praying therein that though the photo stat copy of the case diary has been suppli