1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C482) No. 947 of 2011 Rajesh Kumar Suri S/o Late Shri B.L. Suri R/o 464A, Khurbura Mohalla District Dehradun, Uttarakhand …..…Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand, Dehradun 2. District Magistrate, Dehradun 3. Senior Superintendent, Dehradun 4. S.H.O., P.S. Dalanwala, District Dehradun 5. C.B.I., S.P.E., through its Superintendent of Police, Dehradun 6. Satender, S/o Shri Sukhbir Vill. Kamla, District Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) ……….Respondents Mr. Rajesh Kumar Suri, petitioner, present in person. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 5. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioner has sought quashing of the charge sheet (Sessions Trial no. 12 2 of 2005) dated 24.01.2003 (arisen out of crime no. 1 of 2003), Police Station Dalanwala, Dehradun, relating to offences punishable under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 427, 504, 506 IPC, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/ I Fast Track Court, Dehradun. 3. Mr. R.K.Suri, pleaded that he is a whistle blower who highlighted the illegal activities of one Sudhir Jain, Ravikant Kiryana and others in the year 2001. It is further pleaded by him that the impugned criminal proceedings were initiated against him due to that rivalry. It is prayed in the petition that the matter should be reinvestigated. 4. Perusal of the papers show that the sessions trial against the present petitioner, proceedings of which are challenged, is pending since 2005, and six years have passed. The petitioner has raised factual pleas in the petition which cannot be examined by this Court in its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.. It is for the trial court to examine the same if raised before it after recording the evidence. Though the petitioner has stated that even the charge is not framed, but 3 he has not filed the copy of the order sheet to show as to who was responsible for causing so many adjournments during the trial. 5. For the reasons as discussed above, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily with the observation that the trial court shall proceed with and conclude the trial of the case as expeditiously as possible. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 14.10.2011