IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Misc. Criminal Application No. 341/2003 Sukhjivan Singh Grewal … Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others ..Respondents. Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned A.G.A. for the State. Sri D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for respondent No.3. [Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, ACJ (Oral)] By way of this petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner, who is facing trial in criminal case No. 5164/2003, State Vs. Sukhjivan Singh Grewal, U/Ss 406, 506, 120-B, 420 I.P.C. pending before C.J.M. Haridwar, has prayed for setting aside the summoning order dated 1-11-2003 and to quash the entire proceeding of aforesaid criminal case. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.3 lodge an F.I.R. against the petitioner with the allegation that the petitioner obtained a sum of Rs. 9,09,700/- from him with the assurance that he will return the same very soon. After obtaining the amount the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- through cheque No. 813893 dated 21.11.2001 and thereafter he did not pay any amount and a sum of Rs. 6,59,700/- is outstanding against him. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. that the petitioner has cheated him and now he is giving threats to the complainant. It is also mentioned therein that the intention of the petitioner was to cheat the complainant from the very beginning. The police investigated the case and after finding prima facie case against the petitioner submitted charge sheet against him. Thereafter the learned Magistrate vide order dated 1-11-2003 has taken cognizance against the petitioner and passed summoning order. 2 Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this petition for setting aside the charge sheet, summoning order as well as for quashing the entire proceeding of the criminal case. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the contention that the transaction between the parties is purely of civil nature, a civil suit is pending between the parties and the criminal case is counter blast of the civil litigation pending between the parties, hence the proceedings of the criminal case should be quashed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record I do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Merely the dispute being primarily of civil nature is not by itself a ground to quash criminal proceedings. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment cited in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 332 ( Mahesh Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan and another) has relied upon the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. SCC pp 559-60, para-7, which reads as under:- “7. This court has consistently held that the revisional or inherent powers of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence. Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited case of Mahesh Chaudhary, further held that- 3 “ It was furthermore observed that the High Court should be slow in interfering with the proceedings at the initial stage and that merely because the nature of the dispute is primarily of a civil nature, the criminal prosecution cannot be quashed because in cases of forgery and fraud there would always be some element of civil nature.” Relying upon the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as well as looking to the facts that the charge sheet prima facie discloses commission of offences, a fair investigation was carried out in the case and there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order, I do not find any substance in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine. Dated: 10-09-2009 (B.C. Kandpal, ACJ) ISB 4