IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 530 of 2005 Suresh Chandra Joshi S/o Sri Ishwari Dutt R/o Village Cahan, Tehsil Gangolihat, District Pithoragarh. Presently posted as Asstt. Development Officer, Chamwapat, District Champawat. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal. 2. Judicial Magistrate Didihat, District Pithoragarh. ...…………. Respondents Mr. I.D. Paliwal, 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. 103 of 2005, State Vs. Suresh Chandra Joshi, relating to offences punishable under Section 467, 468, 471, 420, 409 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior 2 Division) / 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 certain construction activities of public work were done in Block Kanalichina of District Pithoragarh, in which certain financial irregularities were complained. Petitioner Suresh Chandra Joshi was Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat). On enquiry, it was found that certain muster rolls were forged in connection with the construction activities. As such, a first information report was got lodged by Incharge Inspector, Vigilance Cell, Haldwani, against the petitioner and three others, which was registered as Crime No. 36 of 2000, relating to offences punishable under Section 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 420 of I.P.C. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner before the court concerned. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent. It is pleaded that the petitioner is not responsible for technical defects in the construction. It is also pleaded that from the first information report itself, it appears that some of the muster rolls were directly taken to the Block Development Officer for making the payment orders, as 3 such, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for it. The above pleas taken by the petitioner are factual in nature, which cannot be examined by this Court on the basis of half baked evidence before it. It is for the trial court to see as to whether the petitioner is innocent or not, and also to see whether he was actually involved in commission of crime or not, after recording evidence of the witnesses. 5) For the reasons as discussed above, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this petition moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed. The interim order dated 25.10.2005 stands automatically vacated. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. August 20, 2010. H. Negi