IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.992 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Sanjeev Mehrotra …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: August 12, 2010 Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Adv. holding brief of Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/applicant has sought quashing of charge sheet dated 9.11.2006 as well as the proceedings of criminal case no.784 of 2006, State v. Shahzad Siddiqui and another, under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC). Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available in file. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Mohammad Umar, Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar lodged a report against the applicant Sanjeev Mehrotra, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur on 14.8.2006 with the allegations that on 24.11.2005 tenders were invited for supply of stationary items, in which total five firms, namely, Dashmesh Offset Printers, Station Road, Kashipur, Lovely and General Store, Jaspur, Sanjay Book Depot, P.S. Thakurdwara, Moradabad, Nitin Stationery Store, Piramdwara and National Printers, Jaspur submitted its tenders, out of which, being the lowest 2 quotation, the tender of Dashmesh Offset Printers, Kashipur, was approved by the Board on 25.3.2006 on the recommendation of the applicant. It is alleged that when respondent no.2 inspected the related papers, he came to know that except Dashmesh Offset Printers, Kashipur, other four suppliers of aforestated firm were not registered in Income Tax, Sales Tax Department. He also came to know that there is no such firm in the name of National Printers, Bari Chauk, Jaspur. Further, Lovely General Store, Jaspur and Sanjay Book Depot, Thakurdwara have not submitted any quotation in Nagar Palika, Jaspur. He also came to know from Dashmesh Offset Printers that they have not given any quotation or bill at Nagar Palika. He further alleged that the applicant, in order to serve his personal interest, has committed fraud with Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur. With the same averments, the present FIR was lodged by respondent no.2 against the applicant and another under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated by the I.O. During the course of investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses and on completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the applicant u/s 166 of IPC in the court, on the basis of which, learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence against the applicant and, thereafter, a criminal case no.784 of 2006, u/s 166 IPC was registered and criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant. Against the said charge sheet and the criminal proceedings, the applicant has preferred the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the First Information Report as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and after going through other papers available in file, I am of the view that prima facie a case under section 166 of IPC is made out against the applicant. 3 Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the First Information Report are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety as well as on the basis of documentary evidence, I am of the view that the charge sheet is rightly submitted by the I.O. and the criminal proceedings are accordingly rightly initiated against him. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The C482 application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 7.12.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.8.2010 RG