IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 419 of 2004 Harish Chandra Suyal … Petitioner Vs State & another …Respondents With Criminal Misc. Application No. 456 of 2004 Harish Chandra Suyal & others …Petitioners Vs State & another …Respondents With Criminal Misc. Application No. 461 of 2004 Harish Chandra Suyal & others …Petitioners Vs State & another …Respondents Sri Bhuwnesh Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners Sri S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. for the State Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. All the Criminal Misc. Applications arise out of the same judgment and order dated 29.7.2004 and similar question of fact of law is involved, hence they are being decided by the common judgment and order. 2- By way of these petitions, preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have sought the relief for setting aside the order dated 29.7.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Didihat, Pithoragarh, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 409, 420,120B I.P.C. 2 They have further sought the relief for quashing the charge sheet filed in the aforesaid cases. 3- Brief facts as emerged out from the record of Criminal Misc. Application No. 419/2004 are that Sri Vijay Kumar, Incharge Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Haldwani, Nainital, got lodged an F.I.R. on 11.4.2000 at P.S. Askot, District Pithoragrah under Sections 420,468,409,471 and 120B I.P.C. against the applicant and other co- accused persons and the same were registered as different case crime numbers. For all three cases the police made investigation and after finding prima facie case against the petitioners submitted charge sheets before the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate being satisfied with the material collected by the police during investigation took cognizance against the accused/petitioners vide order dated 29.7.2004. 4- Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court for setting aside the impugned cognizance order as well as charge sheet. 5- Heard Sri Bhuwnesh Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 6- Having considered the material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any force in these petitions. The police had thoroughly investigated the matter and collected evidence, thereafter finding prima facie case against the accused/petitioners submitted 3 charge sheets in the respective cases. The learned Magistrate relying upon the material collected during investigation has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 420,468,409,471 and 120B I.P.C. As far as allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioners are concerned, this Court is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to appreciation of the evidence at this stage. The evidence is yet to be collected before the trial judge and it would be appropriate for the trial judge to decide the matter after appreciation of the evidence to be adduced before it. Any judgment rendered by this Court would amount to premature trial. I do not find any abuse of process of court and flagrant miscarriage of justice in this case. 7- The petitions lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. 8- Accordingly, the petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are dismissed. Stay orders, if any, stand vacated. 9- However, in case, if the petitioners move bail applications before the court concerned, the same shall be disposed of by the court concerned expeditiously and without causing any unreasonable delay. 10- Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the files of C482 Nos. 456/2004 and 461/2004. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 27-03-2010 SP