IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Case No. 775 of 2011 Fainy Singh S/o Late Shri Rana Singh R/o Village Mandora, Police Station Behat, Saharanpur, District Saharanpur (U.P.). ….…..Petitioner Versus 1- State of Uttarakhand, through Principal Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2- Inspector, Crime Branch, Central Investigation Department, Meerut Circle, Meerut (U.P.). 3- U.P.F.C. 76 Rajpur Road, Dehradun through its Regional Manager. ……Respondents Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A., present for the State. Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate, present for the respondent No.3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. By means of this petition moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashing of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1585 of 2008, CBCID Vs. Indrapal Khatri and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. Respondent No.3 U.P. Finance Corporation is the creditor. In its counter affidavit respondent No.3 has stated that it does not want to prosecute the petitioner. Attention of this Court is drawn to the Annexure No.2 to the writ 2 petition. Whereby the Regional Manager, U.P. Finance Corporation has written letter to CBCID (respondent No.25) for returning back the file. It is contended that since the U.P.F.C., itself is not interested to prosecute the petitioner, the impugned proceedings be quashed. However, on perusal of papers on record, it appears that complainant is CBCID, and charge sheet was filed way back in the year 2008. Two other accused are already facing trial. In the above circumstances, in respect of the non- compoundable offence, it will not be just and proper on the part of this Court to quash the proceedings. Therefore, without expressing any opinion, as to the final merits of the case, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed summarily, with the observation that if the petitioner Fainy Singh, surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay in the circumstances mentioned above. It is further observed that the trial court may consider the plea of U.P.F.C. that it is not interested to prosecute the petitioner at the time of framing of the charge. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 12.09.2011 JM