IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 172 of 2003 Kirat Pal Singh S/o Chandi Prasad R/o 213 Malviya Nagar P.S. Gang Nahar, Roorkee District Haridwar. …………..…Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal. 2. Surendra Singh, S/o Late Harish Chandra Manager, National Inter College Bhalswa Ganj, P.S. Jhibreda District Haridwar. ……….Respondents. Shri Arvind Vashistha, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for respondent No. 1/State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. 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 proceedings of criminal case No. 56 of 2003, State Vs. Kirat Pal Singh, relating to offence punishable under Section 409 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge, Jr. Div., Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was Principal in National Inter College, Bhalswaganj, within the limits of P.S. Jhabreda, District Haridwar, run by the Management 2 Committee of said Institute. It is alleged by the petitioner that dispute arose between the petitioner and the Management whereafter petitioner was maliciously placed under suspension. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the First Information Report was got lodged at the instance of the Management, alleging that the petitioner has committed financial irregularity and embezzled the public funds. The petitioner has also alleged that audit report was prepared in his absence, and the same is not correct. It is also pleaded that as per the instructions of the Regional Director of Education, the authorities failed to get re-audited the accounts. Whether the prosecution of the petitioner is malicious or not, whether the audit report is correct or not, and whether the petitioner has embezzled the public funds or not, are such questions of fact, which can be better appreciated by the trial court after recording evidence in the case. It is not desirable on the part of this Court to go into such questions in which jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of half baked evidence, before it. 4. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the trial of the case, pending against the petitioner. 5. The petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that the questions of fact, pleaded before this Court, can be raised by 3 the petitioner during the trial, before the trial court. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:16.03.2010 Sweta