2 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital … Respondents IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 509 of 2005 Mangoo Lal Verma S/o Late Hori Lal Ex-Sachiv cum Cooperative Inspector Group (2) Nainital District Cooperative Sangh Ltd. Haldwani, District Nainital Presently R/o House No. 524 Mohalla Nai Basti Bijnor District Bijnor (U.P.) … Applicant Vs Sri Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner/applicant Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 223 of 1996, State Vs Mangu Lal Verma, relating to offence punishable under section 409 of I.P.C. pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was retired on 31.07.1987 for the post of Sachiv-cum- Cooperative Inspector Group (2) Nainital, District Cooperative Sangh Ltd. Haldwani, District Nainital. On 04.05.1987 a First Information Report was lodged by Janardhan Tiwari (Upper District Cooperative Officer), under Section 409 of I.P.C., which was registered as Case Crime No. 253 of 1987. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid 3 criminal case, the applicant preferred a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court by which, the First Information was quashed and further directed to pay all the retrial benefits to the petitioner from 01.08.1997 with 20% interest per annum. On the basis of the aforesaid order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after perusing the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, closed the aforesaid criminal proceedings against the applicant. After lapse of eight and half months, the Assistant Prosecution Officer filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 09.03.2005 stating therein that the documents filed by the applicant in criminal case No. 223 of 1996 were not correct, therefore, necessary action be taken against the applicant. On the basis of which, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the applicant, but he did not appear before the trial court. Therefore, on 11.07.2005, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants against the applicant. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant, he has preferred this petition before this Court. 3. Heard Sri Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner/applicant, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before the Court that the criminal case has already been concluded by the trial court and merely on the application moved by Assistant Prosecuting Officer on behalf of the State, the reopening of the case and issuance of non- bailable warrants issued against the applicant is nothing but abuse of process of law. The whole proceeding of the 4 case has been reopened only to harass and pressurize the applicant. Therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant is liable to be set aside. 5. Having considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents filed before me, I am of the view that there is no flagrant injustice and abuse of process of court in this case. The evidences are incomplete and hazy as yet. The points raised in the petition are the disputed question of facts and it can be judged by the trial court where the evidence are yet to be collected. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not supposed to act as a trial judge. The averments made in the petition are the disputed question of fact, which can be assessed and judged by the trial court. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility of the evidence at this stage. Any judgment rendered by me would amount to premature judgment where the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. The applicant shall have an 5 opportunity to place the evidence in their defence before the trial court where the matter shall be finally adjudicated after considering the entire evidence. I do not find any merit in this case at this stage. 7 Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 8. Consequently, the stay order dated 10.08.2005 stands vacated. 28.06.2010 ASWAL (B.C. Kandpal, J.)