Suresh Chandra Joshi Vs State of Uttaranchal and Judicial Magistrate

Uttarakhand High Court 20 Aug 2010 (2010) 08 UK CK 0092
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Hon'ble Bench

Prafulla C. Pant, J

Final Decision

Dismissed

Acts Referred
  • Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482
  • Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468

Judgement Text

Translate:

Prafulla C. Pant, J.@mdashBy means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 103 of 2005 State v. Suresh Chandra Joshi, relating to offences punishable u/s 467, 468, 471, 420, 409 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Didihat, District Pithoragarh.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that certain construction activities of public work were done in Block Kanalichina of District Pithoragarh, in which certain financial irregularities were complained. Petitioner Suresh Chandra Joshi was Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat). On enquiry, it was found that certain muster rolls were forged in connection with the construction activities. As such, a first information report was got lodged by Incharge Inspector, Vigilance Cell, Haldwani, against the petitioner and three others, which was registered as Crime No. 36 of 2000, relating to offences punishable u/s 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 420 of I.P.C. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner before the court concerned.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent. It is pleaded that the petitioner is not responsible for technical defects in the construction. It is also pleaded that from the first information report itself, it appears that some of the muster rolls were directly taken to the Block Development Officer for making the payment orders, as such, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for it. The above pleas taken by the petitioner are factual in nature, which cannot be examined by this Court on the basis of half baked evidence before it. It is for the trial court to see as to whether the petitioner is innocent or not, and also to see whether he was actually involved in commission of crime or not, after recording evidence of the witnesses.

5. For the reasons as discussed above, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this petition moved u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed. The interim order dated 25.10.2005 stands automatically vacated. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned.

From The Blog
Delhi High Court Mandates e-KYC for Domain Registrations to Stop Fraudulent Websites and Protect Consumers
Jan
11
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Mandates e-KYC for Domain Registrations to Stop Fraudulent Websites and Protect Consumers
Read More
Supreme Court: Civil Verdict Not a Shield Against Crime, Restores Criminal Trial in Family Property Dispute
Jan
11
2026

Court News

Supreme Court: Civil Verdict Not a Shield Against Crime, Restores Criminal Trial in Family Property Dispute
Read More