1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C482) No. 552 Of 2004 Dinesh Chandra Pandey ………………….. Applicant Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Station Officer, P.S. Kichha, District-Udham Singh Nagar 3. K.P. Agarwal, Chief Accountant, Kichha Sugar Company Limited, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar ………….. Opposite Parties Shri M.S.Pal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Deepak Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioner. Shri B.S.Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State. Shri T.A.Khan, Advocate present for respondent no.3 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1402 of 2004 State vs. D.C.Pandey and another, relating to offence punishable under section 409 I.P.C., Police Station Kichha, pending in 2 the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavits. (3) Prosecution story in brief is that respondent no.3 Chief Accountant of Kichha Sugar Cooperative Mill lodged a First Information Report against the petitioner and one Gulshan Kumar, who were cashier and Assistant cashier respectively, in the establishment, alleging that they have misappropriated an amount of Rs 3,08,921.10. It is alleged that the said amount was related to wages, bonus etc. payable to the employees of the organization. (4) Learned counsel for the present petitioner submitted that perusal of the First Information Report itself shows that allegation of embezzlement are mainly against co accused Gulshan Kumar and not the petitioner. Attention of this court is also drawn to the copy of the departmental enquiry report which is annexed as SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 7th of April 2010, whereby, the petitioner has been 3 exonerated of most of the charges as the same were not proved. Lastly, on behalf of the petitioner attention of this court is drawn to Annexure-1 to rejoinder affidavit in which the Chief Accountant has disclosed that after inquiry it was found that the Gulshan Kumar (co accused) was the responsible person who should have explained a balance of Rs. 3,08,921.10, which was found unexplained. (5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the papers on record, this court agrees with the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner to the extent that the allegations in the First Information Report are mainly against the co accused Gulshan Kumar, and in the departmental inquiry also the petitioner has been exonerated of most of the charges, but to examine the extent of liability of the petitioner, this court can not go into the factual aspects of the matter with incomplete evidence before it. It is for the trial court to see the innocence of the present petitioner Dinesh Chandra Pandey, after recording evidence adduced by the parties. 4 (6) For the reasons as discussed above, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner Dinesh Chandra Pandey surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. The interim order dated 07.02.2005 stands hereby vacated. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.29.6.2010 N.P