IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 918 of 2009 Sukhbeer Singh Chaudhary ………..Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ………….Respondents Sri Mohinder Singh Bisht, Advocate for the applicant. Sri Prabhat Josh, AGA for the respondent No.1. Dated: December 2, 2009 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (By the Court) Heard Sri Mohinder Singh Bisht, Advocate for the applicant. Sri Prabhakar Joshi, learned Brief Holder is present for the State/respondent no.1. By way of present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., petitioner is assailing summoning order dated 14.05.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar in complaint case no.219 of 2009 whereby learned Magistrate directed to summon the accused under section 420, 120 B I.P.C. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner (accused) persuaded the complainant to purchase a house for Rs.15.00 lacs saying he is the owner of the house while he was not. Not only this, accused has received Rs.3,75,000/- from the complainant. The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India or scope of Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. While exercising powers in either of the provisions, Court is not supposed to enter into the question of fact or appreciation of evidence. The only thing which is required to be seen by the Court is as to whether contents of complaint and statements recorded under section 200/202 Cr.P.C. and material produced before the Magistrate make out any prima facie case or not. Having heard Sri Mohinder Singh Bisht and having perusing the material on record, I find, offence under section 420 IPC is made out. One aspect is sufficient to make the offence of cheating i.e. Sukhbeer was not owner of the property and even then he induced the complainant to pay Rs.3,75,000/- to the accused by playing fraud. Learned Magistrate has committed no error of law and jurisdiction. In view of the above discussion, no interference is called for. Petition is dismissed. (Alok Singh, J.) 02.12.2009 JKJ