JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 687 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 585 of 2007 (State Vs. V.K. Jain) under Sections 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477 IPC, Police Station Hapur Kotwali, District Hapur, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is on bail and is facing trial. Discharge application moved by the applicant was illegally rejected, nothing was found against the applicant in the Departmental Proceedings. A complaint had been made by the applicant against one person posted in the department concerned, therefore, present F.I.R. was lodged in counterblast against the applicant. Initially final report was filed in the matter twice but lastly under the influence of informant, charge sheet was submitted without obtaining sanction for prosecution. Departmental Proceedings was not started against the applicant and he has retired from service. Present prosecution is malicious and is the abuse of process of law. It was further argued that applicant was never posted in the office concerned during the period for which allegation against the applicant has been levelled. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. argued that only on this ground that a Departmental Proceedings was not initiated against the applicant, criminal prosecution cannot be started is not correct. There is sufficient evidence against the applicant to proceed with trial. The court concerned has rightly dismissed the discharge application moved by the applicant. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record. 6. In the instant matter the court below while passing the impugned order has observed that a meticulous analysis of the evidence is not required at this stage. It was also observed that plea taken by the applicant in the discharge application require leading of evidence which can be done during trial. Observations recorded by the court below in the impugned order if scrutinized with the evidence collected during investigation. The same cannot be said to be illegal. There is sufficient evidence to constitute the offences levelled against the applicant in the charge sheet. Observations recorded by the court below in the impugned order if scrutinized with the evidence collected during investigation. The same cannot be said to be illegal. There is sufficient evidence to constitute the offences levelled against the applicant in the charge sheet. The court dealing with the matter at this stage of framing of charge has to see only a prima facie case. From the perusal of entire record at this stage it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. 7. Thus, on the basis of above discussions this Court is of the view that no interference is required in the present matter. Impugned order passed by the court below does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity. Merely on the ground taken by the applicant that he had made a complaint against the clerk posted in the same department, it cannot be held at this stage that present prosecution was started maliciously in the counterblast. The Investigating Officer has collected documentary evidence during investigation which was found sufficient to proceed with the trial. Thus, applicant does not get any help in the present matter with the law laid down by Apex Court in M/s Eicher Tractor Ltd. And others Vs. Harihar Singh and another reported in 2009(1) Crimes 144(SC). Thus, this application being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.