( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of R. C. No. DAI 1999-A-0005 dated 17. 2. 1999 and proceedings emanating therefrom, pending in the court of Special judge, CBI, Delhi. ( 2 ) I have heard Mr. R. N. Mittal, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harish Gulati, learned counsel for CBI, on the point of admission, and have gone through the documents placed on the filed. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is stated to be aged about 58 years and nearing his retirement. A perusal of RC (FIR) shows that Shri Shiv Raj Singh partner of M/s Nanak Food Industries situated at Karawal Nagar, New Delhi entered into a criminal conspiracy with Shri R. K. Bansal (petitioner herein), who was then Dy. Commissioner (DP), Ministry of food processing Industries, Govt. of India, Shri k. K. Siam, the then Revenue Assistant, Govt. of Delhi, Shri R. K. Takkar, the then Chief secretary, Delhi, Shri. M. Dutta, Chief Assistant commissioner, Deptt. of Animal Husbandry and. Dairies, Ministry of Agriculture, Shri M. L. Guglani, Heath Inspector, MCD, Shri Satya prakash, Licensing Clerk, MCD, Delhi, to cheat ministry of Industry, Government of India and Delhi Administration for obtaining an industrial license and permission under Section 21, Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 on the basis of false and forged documents. The role of the present accused petitioner is given on page Nos. 43,47 and 48 of the FIR, according to which the petitioner, while working as public servant, was a part of the criminal conspiracy. He did not allow proper procedure, took personal interest ignoring the directions of his senior officers, made mis-representation of facts to favour the main accused and strongly recommended the case of the accused before licensing committee and he gave wrong information that part of the location was situated in Delhi. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was acting only on the office records and simply furnished comments and had no personal interest or mala fide in processing the case of the main accused. ( 5 ) I may mention here that Shri Harish Gulati, learned counsel for C. B. I, was also present in the court, though notice was not sent to CBI in this petition. ( 5 ) I may mention here that Shri Harish Gulati, learned counsel for C. B. I, was also present in the court, though notice was not sent to CBI in this petition. ( 6 ) DURING the course of hearing the arguments, it has come to my notice that the matter is at the stage of charge where both the parties shall be addressing their arguments and shall be referring to whatever material is on the trial court file. Needless to say that a detailed discussion of this matter in this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. some observation will nave to be made which may prejudice the case of either one or the other party. More so there are severaf accused persons. In my opinion, it will not be appropriate to examine the documents, facts and circumstances when the matter is fixed before the trial court for arguments on charge. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. .