IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.1024 of 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Som Dutt ………Applicant Versus State and others ………Respondents Dated: November 10, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mohd. Azim, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for respondent nos.1 and 2. None is present for respondent no.3. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned order dated 4.12.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/IIIrd F.T.C., Dehradun in Crl. Rev. No.131 of 2006 as well as the order dated 5.10.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., in application no.63 of 2006. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the applicant Som Dutt moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicant before Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Dehradun alleging that respondent no.3 Sri M.D. Kandwal who is General Manager, Opto Electronics Factory, Raipur, Dehradun, in the capacity of public servant, is misappropriating government machinery. He further alleged that the government vehicle provided to respondent no.3 is being used by respondent no.3 and his family for their personal work. It is further alleged that the employees (sportsmen) of the said factory were sent to different places to participate in sporting events/tournaments while T.A./D.A. of those employees (sportsmen) was paid to 2 them by showing them on duty for collection of material, technical discussion, etc. on records. The said application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant was rejected by Judicial Magistrate (CBI) vide his order dated 5.10.2006 and it was held that if any anomalies as alleged by the applicant has been committed by respondent no.3 in the capacity of public servant, the same can be examined and inquired upon by the Auditor during Audit and further that when the matter is under process against respondent no.3 at Department level, there is no point to take any action. Against the said order dated 5.10.2006, the applicant preferred a revision in the court of Sessions which was also dismissed on 4.12.2006 by Upper Addl. Sessions Judge, IIIrd F.T.C., Dehradun. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has preferred the present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. From a perusal of the application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on perusing the papers available in file, I am of the view that the impugned orders dated 5.10.2006 and 4.12.2006 passed by the courts below, does not suffer from any illegality or incorrectness and therefore no interference is required by this Court. Moreover, no evidence is available in file in order to support the averments made in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., on the basis of which this Court can come to the conclusion that lodging of FIR and investigation of the matter is required in the instant case. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in this application. The C482 application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 10.11.2010 RG