IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 430 of 2004 Smt. Shanti Singh W/o Mohan Singh R/o Village Kanalichina, P.O. Kanalichina, Police Station Askot, District Pithoragarh. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Judicial Magistrate, Didihat, District Pithoragarh. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A. for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 718 of 2004, State Vs. Shanti Singh and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 467, 468, 471, 420, 409, 120-B of I.P.C., police station Askot, District Pithoragarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Didihat. 2 3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Village Pradhan. A First information report was lodged by In-charge Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, with the allegations that in respect of construction work of Jogapani Nalla it was found that Sunil Singh (nephew of the Village Pradhan), Kailash Ram, Manohar Singh, Pushkar Ram, Kishan Ram, Nain Singh and Prem Ram are shown as the labourers engaged for doing construction work, while on the same dates in the first fortnight of January 1998, same persons have been shown to have worked in Luathi Marg, Kanalichina, and amount have been drawn at both the places by the accused Shanti Singh, Sunil Singh and others. After investigation of said first information report, charge sheet is filed by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner Shanti Singh and co-accused Sunil Singh. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is Village Pradhan and it was not her job to maintain the muster roll, as such, she cannot be held responsible for the embezzlement and forgery. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court is of the view that it is for the trial court to see the factual aspects of the matter as to what extent the petitioner was involved in the alleged embezzlement and forgery. 3 It is not desirable on the part of this Court to hold at this stage that the petitioner had no role at all in the matter. 6) Therefore, without prejudice to the rights of the parties, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner Shanti Singh surrenders before the court concerned, her bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay, keeping in mind the fact that she is a woman. Interim order dated 06.10.2004, passed by this Court, stands vacated. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 14, 2010. H. Negi 4