IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.231 of 2004 Manoj Prabhakar …Petitioner Versus State and others …Respondents With Criminal Misc. Application No.165 of 2002 Manoj Prabhakar …Petitioner Versus State …Respondent Dated:16-04-2010 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. List has been revised. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 2- Criminal Misc. Application No. 231 of 2004 has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4191 of 2003 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, P.S. Kotwali, Haldwani, under Sections 406, 420, 471 I.P.C. 3- Criminal Misc. Application No. 165 of 2002 has been preferred for quashing the charge sheet no.16A/2001 dated 18.7.2001 filed before A.C.J.M. Haldwani relating to F.I.R. No. 1444 of 1999 under Sections 406, 420, 471 I.P.C. lodged at P.S. Haldwani, Nainital. 4- It is pertinent to mention here that Criminal Misc. Application No. 165 of 2002 was earlier dismissed by this Court on 05.04.2003. Against the said order, the petitioner went before the Hon’ble 2 Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 20.02.2004 remanded the case with the direction to decide the case afresh and liberty was also given to the petitioner to bring on record material, if he so likes. 5- The case has been called out repeatedly, but neither the petitioner nor any counsel is responding on his behalf. The petitioner also did not file any additional material for the consideration of this court. 6- I have heard learned A.G.A. for the respondents and perused the material available on record. I am of the view that entire material needs assessment of the evidence which is to be collected by the trial judge during the course of the trial. In the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the accusation of the petitioner at this stage specially under the circumstances when the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. I do not find any abuse of process of court in this case and no flagrant injustice is caused to the petitioner. 7- The petitions lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. 8- Accordingly, C482 No.231/2004 and C482 No.165/2002 are dismissed. The interim stay orders, if any, stand vacated. 9- Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of C482 No.165 of 2002. 3 10- CRLR No.182/2004 is dissociated from C482 No.231/2004. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP