IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 445 of 2004 Sri Harish Chandra Suyal S/o Sri Gopal Dutt Suyal R/o Village Kunela Khet Post Office Uprari, P.S. Ranikhet, District Almora Presently posted as Village Development Officer, Block Office Tarikhet, District Almora. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal. 2. Judicial Magistrate Didihat, District Pithoragarh. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Govt. Advocate, with Mr. T.C. Agarwal, Addl. Govt. Advocate and Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 714 of 2004, State Vs. Laxmi Dutt and another, relating to offences punishable under Section 467, 468, 471, 420, 409, 120B of I.P.C., police station Askot, pending in the 2 court of Judicial Magistrate, Didihat, District Pithoragarh. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Harish Chandra Suyal was posted as Village Development Officer in Block Kanalichina of District Pithoragarh. A first information report was lodged by Incharge Inspector, Vigilance Cell, Haldwani, against the petitioner and five other accused, relating to offences punishable under Section 409, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120- B of I.P.C., at police station Askot. It is mentioned in the first information report that on receiving a complaint relating to illegalities committed in construction of public work, within the limits of Block Kanalichina, an enquiry was made. It is alleged that certain forgeries were committed in the muster roll, and the money meant for construction activities was misappropriated and embezzled by the petitioner and co-accused Laxmi Dutt, Village Panchayat Officer. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against accused Laxmi Dutt Bhatt and petitioner Harish Chandra Suyal on 11.04.2000, before the Judicial Magistrate, Didihat. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent. It is pleaded that he has no 3 role in construction activities in question. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is involvement of the petitioner in the crime in question, and the allegations made against him are based on the record. 5) In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that disputed questions of fact cannot be examined by this court with half baked evidence before it. It is for the trial court to see whether the petitioner is innocent or not, and whether the evidence on record is sufficient to hold him guilty or not, after examining the witnesses. 6) For the reasons as discussed above, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed. The interim order dated 13.10.2004 stands automatically vacated. It is observed that if the petitioner is not on bail, and surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. August 20, 2010. H. Negi