JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 300 of 2020, under Sections 406 and 407 IPC, Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. 3. According to FIR, the informant booked certain goods through a transporter for its delivery in the State of West Bengal. Coaccused Bablu was its driver. The goods were booked on 15th September, 2020 but it did not reach its destination till 25th September, 2020. Therefore, the FIR was lodged. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner was not entrusted with the goods. He neither was carrier nor in any manner connected with the goods booked. Therefore, offence under Sections 406 and 407 IPC is not at all made out against him. His name in the case came in light on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. Co-accused Bablu is the neighbour of the petitioner. 5. On behalf of the State it is argued that according to the driver, co-accused Bablu and one Waseem , the main person behind it is the petitioner. Certain goods have been recovered but still recovery is to be made, for which purpose, the custody of the petitioner is required. 6. Fir in the instant case definitely discloses commission of serious offences. It is a case of breach of trust. There are three persons named in it. According to the prosecution, petitioner's name came in light during the investigation as a main conspirator behind the offence. What is the role of the petitioner, if any, and what offence he has committed, these are the matters, which fall for consideration of the investigating officer. In the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, these matters cannot be examined. Therefore, there is no substance in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed. 7. The petition is dismissed.