IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 447 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. 716 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. The First information report lodged by In-charge Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, discloses that in respect of Athikhal Zila Parishad Marg, it was shown in the muster roll that Jagdish Ram, Ganesh Ram, Kadak Singh had worked and received the wages. Same set of persons with same parentage have drawn wages on the same dates in the month of August 1997 in respect of work done in Luathi Marg. After investigation charge sheet was filed against the petitioner Shanti Singh and co-accused Luxmi Dutt Bhatt. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is Village Pradhan and she was not responsible for maintaining 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 after recording the evidence as to whether the petitioner is actually involved in the commission of crime or not, and if so, to what extent. It is not desirable on the part of this Court to hold at this stage with incomplete evidence before it that the petitioner had no role in the matter. 3 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 13.10.2004, passed by this Court, stands vacated. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 14, 2010. H. Negi