Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MMO No.38 of 2008. Dated of Decision: July 14th,2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Madan Lal Sharma. …… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate. For the Respondents. : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer, for respondent No.1. Ms. Shweta Julka, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Surinder Singh,J(oral) : In this petition, the petitioner has sought the relief that the five Challans No.111/2 of 2005, 112/2 of 2005, 113/2 of 2005, 114/2 of 2005 and 115/2 of 2005, registered pursuant to the FIR No.148/2002 dated 24.2.2002 under Sections 420,467.468.471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, in Police station Sadar Bilaspur, may be quashed and set-aside. In reply, respondent No.1 has stated that all these matters are pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur, which are at the stages of the service of the petitioner and other accused persons. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. - 2 - According to the petitioner, the above cases are the fall out of election for the post of Chairman of ‘Jayanti Gram Udyog Khadi Samiti’ and the result of old criminal litigation. The contention raised in the petition are outside the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., because the High Court will not go into the contention raised by the petitioner at this stage, which requires the sifting of evidence on merits or otherwise could be raised in defence on merits. The case is regarding bogus purchases and embezzlement of lacs of rupees against the petitioner. Prima-facie the documents expert connects the petitioner with the alleged offence. In fact the question of reliability of the evidence collected at the time of investigation cannot be looked into in this proceeding which is the function of the trial Judge. Please see State of Orissa and another v. Saroj Kumar Sahu [(2005) 13 SCC 540]. Therefore, in view of the above, the petition is dismissed. July 14th, 2008. (Surinder Singh), (Pds) Judge.