U.C. Dhyani, J. – The applicant, by means of present Application under section 482 Cr.P.C, seeks to quash the charge-sheet dated 25.10.2008 and the summoning order dated 21.4.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat in Criminal Case No. 150 of 2010 titled as State v. Lal Singh, under section 409 IPC. The applicant also seeks to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case pending before the said Court. 2. An FIR was lodged by District Supply Officer, Champawat against the applicant on 29.7.2008 at P.S. Lohaghat, District Champawat, which was registered as case crime No. 389/2008 under section 409 IPC. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-applicant for the self-same offence. The cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, vide order dated 21.4.2010 and accused-applicant was summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused-applicant. 3, According to the FIR, applicant, who was posted as Assistant Food Inspector, Dhunaghat, was transferred to some other place. Manoj Kumar Sah, Central Incharge of the godown was asked to take over the charge of godown. On 21.07.2008, the applicant was directed to handover the charge of the godown to Manoj Kumar Sah, Central Incharge of the godown. On the applicant was present in the godown at Dhunaghat. When the applicant was asked to handover the charge of godown to Manoj Kumar Sah, he went to his house to collect the documents, but he did not return to the godown at Dhunaghat. Fair price dealers informed District Supply Officer that the applicant has gone to Devi-Dhura. Thereafter, the District Supply Officer prepared a stock list of the godown in presence of respectable persons of the area and handed over the charge to Manoj Kumar Sah. The stock register, etc., was not handed over by the applicant to the godown incharge. It is alleged that since the applicant did not handover the sale and stock registers of the godown, therefore, the same hampered the official functions. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted, among other things, that leave of the applicant for his absence was sanctioned by the District Magistrate, Champawat, vide order dated 22.1.2009. such leave was granted w.e.f. 5.7.2008 to 24.10.2008, which includes the dates i.e. 21.7.2008 and 22.7.2008, on which dates the alleged incident took place. 5. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted, among other things, that leave of the applicant for his absence was sanctioned by the District Magistrate, Champawat, vide order dated 22.1.2009. such leave was granted w.e.f. 5.7.2008 to 24.10.2008, which includes the dates i.e. 21.7.2008 and 22.7.2008, on which dates the alleged incident took place. 5. It has also come on record that the sale and stock registers of godown were handed over by the applicant to the godown incharge on 25.10.2008. 6. The FIR itself reveals that a list of goods stock was already prepared by the District Supply Officer in presence of respectable persons of the area and the charge of the godown was handed over to Manoj Kumar Sah, Incharge of the godown. 7. It is submitted by learned A.G.A. for the State that the applicant has already reached the age of superannuation and the departmental proceedings for dereliction of duty is still continuing against the applicant. 8. Thus, although, on the basis of FIR, a prima facie case was made out against the applicant, but subsequent developments which have been brought to the notice of the Court suggest that the applicant should not be compelled to undergo the rigmorale of criminal trial, especially in view of the facts that the applicant has already handed over the registers and documents pertaining to the godown to the Incharge of the godown and he was granted leave w.e.f. 5.7.2008 to 24.10.2008 by none other than the District Magistrate. The absence of the applicant on 22.7.2008 was therefore cured by the District Magistrate himself by granting leave to the applicant with retrospective effect. 9. It was held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) I SCC (Cri) 986 that where the Court finds that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to the abuse of the process of the Court, inherent jurisdiction of the Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. may be resorted to. Such power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice for ad­ministration of which alone the Courts exists. 10. Such power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice for ad­ministration of which alone the Courts exists. 10. Although inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically-laid down in the section itself, but the instant case appears to be one such case in which this Court should step in to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. 11. The facts and circumstances of the case suggest that it will be a futile exercise to keep the criminal proceedings pending before the Court below and therefore, the same should be set aside. 12. As a consequence thereof, application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 25.10.2008 and the summoning order dated 21.4.2010 alongwith the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 150 of 2010 titled as State v. Lal Singh, under section 409 IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat are hereby quashed. 13. It is, however, made clear that the aforesaid observations made by this Court will, in no way, influence the departmental proceedings. Aforesaid finding will have no bearing on the departmental action which has been initiated against the delinquent employee (applicant herein). In fact, non-compliance of the directions of District Supply Officer attracted departmental action and not the action under the penal statute against the applicant. Application Allowed. _____________