JUDGMENT Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.: - This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by one of the accused in the G.P.F. Scam raising several grounds and praying for quashing of the entire proceedings of the trial of Special Case No.49 of 2011 (C.B.I. Vs. R.P. Mishra and others) pending before the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Court, Ghaziabad. 2. The grounds taken in support of the prayer made are manifold including improper investigation, proceeding of a joint trial on the strength of an investigation that fails to draw a distinction between re-investigation and denovo investigation, the order of cognizance and summoning, the modification of order dated 3.6.2011 on 6.7.2011 being barred by Section 362 Cr.P.C., the exoneration and discharge of other accused as against the trial of the applicant, and last but not the least amongst other pleas, the order of the trial court in proceeding to prohibit the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses on the strength of the previously recorded statements being violative of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 3. So far as the other issues are concerned, it is to be noted that the entire investigation and the subsequent monitoring of the case is subject to orders passed in Special Leave Petition No.12981 of 2008, Nahar Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India and others. The said Special Leave Petition is still pending and the orders passed therein have been placed before the Court. 4. Apart from the aforesaid factor, the application for discharge filed by the applicant was rejected against which the applicant filed a Criminal Revision that was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 5.2.2014 making observations with regard to the trial not proceeding and issuing necessary directions to the trial court to proceed with the matter. 5. In the aforesaid background, it will not be appropriate for this Court now at this stage when the evidence is being recorded to interfere with the trial of the case on the grounds aforesaid. Such legal grounds can always be argued at the time of final hearing as in my opinion, it would be an inappropriate exercise of discretion to interfere at this stage leaving it open to the applicant, who can raise his entire defence during the trial. 6. Such legal grounds can always be argued at the time of final hearing as in my opinion, it would be an inappropriate exercise of discretion to interfere at this stage leaving it open to the applicant, who can raise his entire defence during the trial. 6. So far as the issue of cross-examination of the witnesses on the strength of their previous statement is concerned, to that extent the applicant is also entitled to the same relief as has been extended in the judgment delivered by this Court on 18.2.2014 in Application (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No.46631 of 2013 and 46295 of 2013. 7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, and as pointed out by Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and in view of the observations made in paragraph Nos. 29, 30 and 47 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Justice R.N. Misra (Retd.) Vs. State of U.P. through S.P. (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad, reported in 2011 (72) ACC 750, the present Application stands disposed of with only a partial relief as indicated herein above. The prayer to quash the entire proceedings is declined.