IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 485 of 2008 (under Section 482 Cr.P.C) Surendra Nand Bahuguna and others. ……….Applicants. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ....…. Respondents Present : Sri Ramji Srivatava, Advocate for the Applicants. Sri P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder for the State. Sri I.P. Kohli, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. By way of this petition moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a prayer has been advanced to quash the chargesheet No. 66 of 2008 dated 27.04.2008 submitted by the police after investigation against petitioners whereupon a criminal case no. M 109/2008 (State Vs. Surendra Bahuguna and others) was registered and proceedings of the above mentioned case are pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2. Having heard learned counsel for either parties, it appears that dispute between Siddharath Dutta, Advocate and all the petitioners pertains to a piece of land situated in Khasra No. 232 area 0.29 acres in village Sewla Kalan, Dehradun. Petitioners, claiming the said land of their own, wanted to fence the same, that was intervened by Siddharath Dutta, who resided adjacent, claiming himself to be the owner of the plot. So this quarrel escalated into manhandling of each other on dated 22.06.2005 at 10.00 a.m. The cross FIRs were lodged. The police submitted final report against all the petitioners on dated 21.08.2005 but the same could be filed in the court on 27.01.2006. When the notices were sent to Siddharath Dutta, he 2 filed protest petition along with affidavits whereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun made orders for further investigation on 15.09.2006, which resulted into submission of the chargesheet against all the petitioners for the offence under section 147, 323, 504, 506, 342, 452 IPC. 3. On the other hand, another First Information Report was lodged by Manorama Bahuguna (respondent no. 2) against Siddharath Dutta resulted into submission of chargesheet against him for the offence under Section 147, 307, 447, 352, 504, 506, 323 IPC. The same was challenged by way of Criminal Misc. Application no. 816 of 2005 before this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the Siddharath Dutta and four others, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the same, observing that this Court is not supposed to embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability of evidence and sustainability of the accusation on a reasonable appreciation of evidence. Any decision of this Court on the basis of the documents filed before this Court at this stage would amount to premature decision, as the evidence in this case is yet to be adduced before the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued before this Court that Siddharath Dutta, being a local practicing Advocate, has taken succour of bar association and exerted pressure upon local court as well as police driving them to go in his favour and all these resulted into submission of chargesheet. While learned counsel on behalf of Siddharath Dutta argued that no such pressure has ever been exerted in the scenario and this is evident from the fact that Siddharath Dutta had to file a civil suit no. 361 of 2005 on 27.06.2005 for protection of his rights against Bahugunas. 3 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has also relied upon the precedent of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CBI Vs. K.M. Sharan reported in 2008 (2) CCSC 815 SC wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down seven yardsticks for entertaining the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. and the present petition is nowhere covered under any of these seven yardsticks. 6. Having heard learned counsel for either parties, this Court do agree with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. Fortiori, when the cross case is pending upon the chargesheet and that is being tried in the court below, fitness of the things demands that the impugned chargesheet should also be tried by court of competent jurisdiction. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that Siddharath Dutta being a local practicing advocate uses his influence supported by bar association is not tenable for the reason that if it is so in the estimation of petitioners, then remedies are available to him seeking to make over the cases in some other district. This Court is not inclined to quash the chargesheet because it will amount to embarking upon the entire controversy on merits at this stage. Hence, this petition is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 14.11.2011 SKS