IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.446 OF 2004 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Badri Dutt Lakhera …………Applicant Versus State and others …………Respondents Dated: July 14, 2010 Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, 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 the relief for quashing the entire proceedings of criminal case no.671/2004 State v. Mor Singh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tehri Garhwal, so far it relates to the present applicant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards paragraph nos.8 and 9 of the affidavit annexed along with the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. wherein it has been mentioned that Sri N.D. Semwal was appointed as an Enquiry Officer before whom the affidavit was submitted by Sri Vijay Singh Chauhan, Secretary who is one of the accused person in the impugned First Information Report. In the said affidavit, Vijay Singh has admitted the fact that mistakenly the loan was disbursed amongst the persons regarding which he has given detail in para no.2 of the said affidavit. In the said affidavit, he specifically admitted this fact that the verification regarding the person in favour to whom the loan has been disbursed, has been verified by himself. In the said affidavit, he mentioned this fact that on 16.8.2001 he deposited a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- 2 and rest of the amount was also deposited by Vijay Singh Chauhan, the then Secretary on 30.10.2001. Thereafter the entire rest of the amount was deposited by Vijay Singh Chauhan, regarding which an intimation was given by him to the Secretary by means of letter dated 4.10.2001. The State has filed the counter affidavit of Sri S.N. Dobhal, District Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Tehri Garhwal, wherein at para-7, it is stated that the contents of para nos.8 to 12 are not admitted since the inquiry committee had already submitted its report on 18.8.2001 and thereafter the said inquiry committee became functious officio. From the above discussions, it reveals that the disputed questions of facts are involved in the instance case. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot decide the factual disputes. That is a function of the trial court, who will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the controversy raised in the instant petition is similar to the one adjudicated upon by this Court in “Devi Prasad Uniyal v. State and others” (C-482 No.448 of 2004) decided on 7.8.2009. Hence, he prayed that the present petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 7.8.2009 passed in aforementioned C482 petition. Prayer made is innocuous in nature and deserves to be accepted. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I think it would be just and proper that the petitioner my move an application before the trial court where the matter is pending giving the entire details for the proper adjudication of the case. The trial court shall take all the material into 3 consideration and then decide the matter in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed of. Interim order dated 13.10.2004 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 14.07.2010 RG