IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C482 No. 32 of 2011 Nitin Mehrotra ……Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Present: Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. By means of this application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 12.11.2010, summoning order dated 25.11.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3666 of 2010 State Vs. Hira Singh and others under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur so far as it relates to the applicant. In addition to that prayer, the applicant has prayed that the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3666 of 2010 State Vs. Hira Sing and others under Section 419, 40, 467, 468, 120B IPC pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur be stayed till the pendency of this application. 3. According to the applicant, he was only an introducer in opening of a Bank Account and was not a guarantor to the loan granted to Sri Rudra Singh. It has nowhere been stated in the FIR that the loan was granted to Sri Rudra Singh on persuasion of the applicant. It has 2 further been submitted by the applicant that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the charge- sheet. 4. The aforesaid submissions of the applicant, in the opinion of this Court, may be good grounds for grant of bail. 6. This Court is not inclined to pass any order quashing the charge-sheet dated 12.11.2010, summoning order dated 25.11.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3666/2010 State Vs. Hira Singh and others under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 120 B IPC pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, so far as it relates to the applicant, since the evidence is yet to be recorded by the learned Magistrate. The instant C482 petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is provided that if the applicant moves a Bail Application before the Magistrate concerned, the same shall be decided expeditiously, without unreasonable delay. 7. All the applications stand disposed of. (B.S. Verma, J.) Vacation Judge 12.1.2011 Rathour