JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition, filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed for quashing of F.I.R. No.167 of 2019, dated 06.09.2019, registered under Section 354-D(2) of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, as well as consequential proceedings which are pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh 2. According to the petitioner, he is not guilty of the offences which stand registered against him in the above mentioned F.I.R., as he has not committed the alleged offences. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents appended with the petition as well as the averments made in the same. 4. It appears from the averments made in the petition itself that departmental enquiry also stood initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint which stood lodged against him by respondent No.4, at whose behest, F.I.R. has also been registered against the petitioner and departmental proceedings which stood initiated against him have led to imposition of major penalty upon the petitioner. 5. According to the petitioner, as major penalty already stands imposed upon him in the departmental enquiry, therefore, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against him on the same set of allegations as the same amounts to double jeopardize. 6. In my considered view, contention of the petitioner is completely unsustainable in law. No doubt, the allegations levelled against the petitioner have resulted in holding of the departmental enquiry also, but this does not means that a First Information Report, which has been so registered against the petitioner, cannot be proceeded further, simply because a departmental enquiry also stood initiated on the same facts against the petitioner. 7. The domain of the departmental enquiry is to ascertain as to whether on the set of allegations levelled against the petitioner, by applying the principle of preponderance of probability, whether the petitioner is good enough to be retained in service or not, or whether any other penalty should be imposed upon him or not. 8. On the other hand, in the criminal proceedings, the allegations levelled against the accused have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to punish him for the purported commission of the offence in terms of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 8. On the other hand, in the criminal proceedings, the allegations levelled against the accused have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to punish him for the purported commission of the offence in terms of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. These are two distinct and separate proceedings and simply because both stand initiated on the basis of same or similar complaint, this does not means that holding both these proceedings amounts to double jeopardize. 9. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. It is clarified that the observations which have been made by the Court while disposing of this petition, are only for the purpose of disposal thereto and the same shall have no bearing as far as the trial of the case before learned Court below is concerned. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand dismissed.