IN THE HIGH COURT OP IKARNATAIKA CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARAWAD Dated the 11 day of April 201 1 :BEPORE: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE : V.JAGANNATHAN CRIMINAL jIONo. 10514j 201 1 BETWEEN: Manjunath, S/o Ishwar Hegde, Age: 56 years. R/o MIG II. 25. Ganesh Nagara. Dandeli, Taluk: Dandeli, Uttara Kannada District. Petitioner (By Sri G.M.Bhat, Advocate.) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, by Dandeli Town Police Station. rept. by S.P.P., High Court Circuit Bench Building, Dharawad - 580 011. 2. Ramesh. S/o Keshav Kodkani, Age: 77 years, Trustee of Dandeli Welfare Trust and President of Dandeli Welfare Society. M.G.C.M. Kanva Vidvalava, Dandeli, Taluk: Dandeli. District: Uttara Kannada. Respondents (By Sri Vinayak Kulkarni, HCGP for R-1.) Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No. 342/2010 (Dandeli Town Police Crime No. 174/2008) pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court. Dandeli. This petition coming on for admission this day, the court made the following ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for R 1 State in respect of the petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No. .342 /20 0. 2. The petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. following the complaint being registered in Crime No. 174/2008 of Dandeli Town Police Station. The main allegation against the petitioner is that, he is said to have involved in financial misappropriation of funds. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, first of all, the petitioner himself was terminated from the service of the school and he had to move the E.A.T., Karawar, and he was ordered to be reinstated and accordingh, he was taken back to services. Therefore, this petitioner is not in any way responsible for the misappropriation of funds and the further fact is that, there is a dispute between the two factions of the Management and, on account of the quarrel between the said two factions, the petitioner became the victim. The further submission made is that, the charge sheet was submitted almost after 2 years and, therefore, for all these reasons, the proceedings be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader argued that the trial court has framed the charge and the matter is set down for trial and at this stage, interference by this court is not called for and all the grounds urged by the petitioner’s counsel can very well put forward before the trial court on merits. 4 5. Taking note of the aforesaid submissions put forward and the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the fact that charge sheet submitted has led to the trial court having framed the charge and the case also being set down for trial, it would not be in the interest ofjustice to interfere at this stage and, therefore, without going deep into the merits of the case, it is suffice to mention that the petitioner can be directed to take all the contentions before the trial court and, if necessary, can also lead defence evidence. 6. For the above reasons, the petition is rejected. The trial court to speed up the trial and complete it before July 31, 2011. 3e3/e JUDGE ckc/