IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 421 of 2004 Manjoor and others …Petitioners Versus State and others …Respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have sought the relief for quashing the charge sheet in Case Crime No.11 of 2004 under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. and order dated 14.6.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar, in Criminal Case No. 681 of 2004 State vs. Taimur and others, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. 2- Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent no. 3 lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioners under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., on 13.1.2004 alleging therein that an agreement was executed between petitioners no. 1 to 3 and respondent no. 3 on 8.1.2003 of their agriculture land @ Rs.95,000/- per Bigha and this agreement was registered before Notary on the same day. Petitioner no. 1 to 3 received Rs.1,70,000/- from respondent no. 3 as earnest money out of total amount of Rs.85,07,250/- and petitioner no. 4 asked respondent no. 3 to see him after four days, but when respondent no. 3 came after four days, petitioner no. 4 was not found over there. It has also been alleged that accused neither returned amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- nor executed the sale deed in his favour and they committed fraud with him and grabbed Rs. 1,70,000/- threatening to kill him and his family if he would come again to meet them. The said case was registered as Case Crime No. 11 of 2004. The police after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioners under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. and learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners vide order dated 14.6.2004. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 3- Heard Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondents no. 1 & 2, Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and perused the record. 4- Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that prima facie no case under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners and learned trial court has committed manifest error in summoning the petitioners to face trial under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., as breach of contract of sale does not constitute offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Dalip Kaur and others vs. Jagnar Singh and another, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 5117. submitting that prima facie ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. are made out in the present case and learned trial court has rightly summoned the petitioners to face trial under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. 6- I have gone through the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners and I am of the view that the above cited judgment is of no help to the petitioners as the facts and circumstances of the above cited judgment are entirely different to the facts and circumstances of the present case. I have also considered the rival contentions made by learned counsel for the parties. I am of the opinion that in the present case, prima facie case under Sections 420,406 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners and learned trial court has rightly summoned the petitioners to face trial under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance in the matter after considering the entire material collected by the police during the course of investigation and no abuse of process of court has been committed in the instant case. This court is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to allegations levelled against the petitioners at this stage especially under the circumstance when the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. Any judgment rendered by this Court would amount to pre-trial. I do not find any abuse of process of court and no flagrant injustice is caused by the learned trial court while summoning the petitioners to face trial. 7- The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8- Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim stay order, if any, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) April 20, 2010 SP