IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 429 of 2010 Suyash Dixit S/o late Sri Chandra Bhan Dixit R/o Pooran Nagar, Police Line Alambaugh, District Lucknow (U.P.). ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. State through its Secretary / Director Tourism, Uttarakhand, Patel Nagar, Dehradun Through Regional Tourism Officer, District Uttarkashi. ...…………. Respondents Mr. S.S. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 208 of 2009, State Vs. Suyash Dixit, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi, relating to 2 offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of I.P.C. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed with a Non Government Organization, known as Akhil Bhartiya Rachnatmak Karya Sansthan, having its office at Lucknow. Said Organization appears to have been given certain construction works to be completed by the Government of U.P. (now Government of Uttarakhand), which included constructions of Sulabh Sochalayas and Rein Baseras at various places. In respect of District Uttarkashi an amount of Rs. 11.82 lakhs was paid to the NGO for construction of Rein Baseras, an amount of Rs. 5.62 lakhs was paid for construction of Sulabh Sochalaya in Hanuman Chatti, and an amount of Rs. 2.94 lakhs was paid for construction of Sulabh Sochalaya in Purola. The Organization did not do any work at Purola. They did not give any information of expenditure made amounting to Rs. 4.46 lakhs for the work at Hanuman Chatti, and on an amount of Rs. 8.92 lakhs in respect of Rein Baseras. It appears that several notices were issued, and when the NGO did not respond, the first information report was lodged by the Director of Tourism Department, Government of Uttarakhand, in the year 2006. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is simply an employee with the NGO, and 3 not directly responsible for the construction work undertaken by the Organization. It is further pleaded that the dispute is of civil nature. Whether the petitioner was actually responsible or not as an employee of the NGO, is a question of fact which can be examined by the trial court. It is not desirable on the part of this Court to go into the question of fact with incomplete evidence before it. No doubt, the dispute does have civil nature, but merely on that ground if the criminal liability is also attracted, the criminal proceedings cannot be interfered with on the ground that civil liability also involved in the matter. 5) In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the proceedings of the trial. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner Suyash Dixit surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Stay Application No. 477 of 2010 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 14, 2010. H. Negi 4