SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C482 No.1209 of 2024 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Sahil Mullick, Advocate for the applicant. 2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuli, B.H. for the State. 3. By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has put to challenge the entire proceedings instituted vide Special Sessions Trial No.12 of 2024, before the learned Ist Additional District Judge/Special Judge, The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, Dehradun, registered under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B r/w 3 of Uttarakhand Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 2005 r/w Section 3/21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, Police Station Hadlwani, District Nainital. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that respondent no.4 lodged an F.I.R. against four persons, who held key role in a company – accused of siphoning of money in the name of investment. He further submits that the applicant was a mere receptionist in that company and held only a salaried position and when the management of the said company changed she tendered her resignation which was not accepted. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant herself is a victim of the alleged scam as she along with her mother has invested money in the said company, although she was not named in the F.I.R., but her name has been mentioned in the charge sheet in a cursory manner & without any specific allegations. 6. He further submits that the applicant is a law abiding citizen, who is fully co-operating in the investigation and this Court was also pleased to grant her anticipatory bail. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that applicant is accused of grave offence against the society and Investigation Officer, after due enquiry, has filed a charge sheet against her. 8. I have perused the entire material available on record. 2 9. Since the offences lodged against the applicant are very serious in nature, therefore, this is not a case where the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Moreover, this Court in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not in a position to sift the evidence and when prima facie a case is made out against the applicant and the charge-sheet has been submitted, this Court cannot enter into merits of the case at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only be proved during trial. 10. Accordingly, the present C482 application is dismissed. 11. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 19.03.2025 SK