IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application No. 806 of 2009 Anil Kumar S/o Ram Avtar Prashad R/o Shipra Bhawan, Street No. B-9, Subhash Nagar, Jawalapur, P.S. Jawalapur, District Haridwar. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand Through Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. Manoj Kumar S/o Ramesh Singh R/o Sitapur, P.S. Jawalapur, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for respondent State. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for respondent No. 2 (complainant). 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 (for brevity hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has challenged the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4895 of 2009; State Vs. Anil Kumar (arisen out of Crime No. 129 of 2009), police station Jawalapur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, District Haridwar. 2 3) The offence in respect of which the petitioner is being tried in the aforesaid charge sheet, relates to one punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Anil Kumar, who was the Secretary of Upbhokta Pay Jal Evam Swachhata Samiti, when required to handover the charge of his office to the Village Pradhan of Village Panchayat Sitapur, police station Jawalapur, District Haridwar, failed to deliver the original cash book, and as such, the entrusted property is said to have been misappropriated. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not deny that the petitioner was the Secretary, and was maintaining the cash book, but the petitioner’s case is that he had already delivered the relevant record, including the cash book, to the authorities concerned. He referred in this regard to the report of the Project Officer, in which it is mentioned that the record was with the audit report. Said fact has been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 (complainant). 4) Whether, the entrusted property (cash book) was actually delivered to the complainant or not, is a question of fact to be examined by the trial court after recording evidence on record. This Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot examine the disputed questions of facts raised by the petitioner in the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no allegation of embezzlement against the 3 petitioner. It is further stated that he had no motive to commit the alleged crime. 5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, for the reasons as discussed above, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned, and moves application for bail, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 09, 2010. H. Negi 4