IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 740 of 2011 Ratnesh Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Hari Om Gupta Manager Kailasahanand Mission Trust, Laxman Jhula Tapovan, Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal. ….…..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Dehradun. ……Respondent Ms. Neelima Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A., present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 27.04.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Tehri Garhwal, in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2008, whereby the said court has affirmed the order dated 06.11.2008, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, dismissing the Criminal Complaint Case No. 322 of 2008, under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. 3) It appears that complainant (present petitioner) filed a criminal complaint before the trial court making allegations against one Vijay Kumar Gupta, Dr. Girish Goyal, Manik Goyal, Kishan Batham and Rikky Goyal. The 2 Magistrate, after recording the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and perusal of the First Information Report lodged by the petitioner in respect of the same incident at Police Station came to the conclusion that it was a case of simple property dispute between the parties and it was not a case of commission of criminal offence by the accused. The observation of the trial court in its order dated 06.11.2008, is reproduced below. “………izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ tks Fkkus dks nh mlesa oknh us [kqn fy[kk gS fd fot; dqekj xqIrk us vius ukSdj ds ek/; ls fnukad 16&4&2008 dks ;g lwpuk Hksth gS fd oknh fookfnr dejs ls tujsVj ,oa fcfYM+x eSVhfj;y vkfn gVk nsA bl izdkj oknh dks fot; dqekj xqIrk ds mDr dejksa ls lkeku gVkus dh lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djokus ls nks efgus igys fey xbZ Fkh A ysfdu mDr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugh gqbZ vkSj rc oknh }kjk izLrqr ifjokn 5 vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:/k izLrqr fd;k x;k gS A tcfd oknh lHkh ikapks yksxksa dks igpkurs gS vxj bl izdkj dh ?kVuk ?kfVr gksrh gks rks oknh }kjk lHkh vfHk;qDrx.k dk uke Fkkus dks nh xbZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa D;ks ntZ ugh fd;k x;k] bldk dksbZ dkj.k Li"V ugh fd;k x;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa /kkjk 210 n0iz0la0 ds rgr Fkkuk eqfudhjsrh ls Hkh fjiksVZ ryc dh xbZ Fkh vkSj Fkkuk eqfudhjsrh }kjk xokgks ds c;ku ysus ds mijkUr ;g fu"d"kZ fn;k gS fd mDr lEcU/k esa vkl ikl ds yksxks ls Hkh iwNrkN dh rks voxr djk;k x;k fd mDr dejks ij fot; dqekj dk gh dCtk gS A---------” 4) The revisional court after hearing the parties also concurred by view taken by the trial court. 3 5) After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the impugned orders, this Court finds no illegality committed by the courts below. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 15.11.2011 JM