- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed this application for issuance of appropriate writ or order quashing the entire criminal proceeding against him, including the order dated 28.1.2004, by which, non -bailable warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against the petitioner in G.R. Case No.151 of 2004, arising out of Dhurwa P.S. Case No.8 of 2004, for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 120B and 34 of the IPC. Petitioner has been made accused in Dhurwa P.S. Case No.8 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. Case No.151 of 2004, which was instituted on the basis of the written report submitted by the District Education Officer -cum -Receiver, D.A.V. Public School, Dhurwa, Ranchi. In the F.I.R., there is allegation, against the Members of the Managing Committee of the DAV Public School, Dhurwa, to have committed criminal breach of trust with respect to the money of the said school. The petitioner is a legal practitioner and was not a member of the Managing Committee of the said school. So far as this petitioner is concerned, it is only alleged that the petitioner was an advocate to whom Rs. 37,500/ -, 34,400/ -and 74,500/ -were paid by the then Secretary of the School on 5.12.2003, 27.11.2003 and 9.12.2003 respectively, as his professional fees, but it is alleged that there was no case against the school. Only on the aforesaid allegation the petitioner was made accused in the said Dhurwa P.S. Case No.8 of 2004 and it appears that by order dated 28.1.2004, non -bailable warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against the petitioner on the prayer of the prosecution, which has also been challenged in this writ application.
(3.) IT further appears that the State respondent has filed a counter affidavit in this case, wherein in paragraph 32, it is stated as follows: - "32. That it is humbly submitted that the petitioner has produced a bill in respect to payment of charged by him for his consultancy and other fee at contained in Annexure - 5, but from perusal of this paper, it is clear that it is completely bogus and it requires to be examined.  It appears that though it is stated in paragraph 32 of the counter affidavit that the bill submitted by the petitioner was completely bogus and required to be examined, but from perusal of the entire allegation in the F.I.R., it is apparent that it is no where alleged that the petitioner had produced the bogus bill with respect to the professional service rendered by him. From perusal of the F.I.R., it is also apparent that there no allegation against the petitioner that any money was ever entrusted to him with respect to which he had committed any criminal breach of trust, rather the only allegation against the petitioner is that, he was paid his professional fees by the Secretary of the School. ;