IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.578 OF 2010 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Srikant Ashok Gairola …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another …………Respondents Dated: August 11, 2010 Sri HC Bisht, Adv. for the applicant Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 Sri Ravi Joshi, Adv. for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the impugned order dated 24.5.2010 whereby process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was issued by the J.M.-I Dehradun in Case Crime No.53/2009 U/s 420/406/504/506 IPC. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that petitioner and his brother Arun Gairola entered into an agreement with the complainant Rohit Kapoor on 13.8.2006 to sell the lands in question in the names of petitioner, his brother Arun Gairola (co-accused) and his sister Usha Rachnard Gairola having various Khasra numbers, measuring about 22 Bighas. It was told to the complainant that the lands are free from all encumbrances and they are having the rights to sell the lands. The agreement to sell was entered at the rate of Rs.9,36,781/- per Bigha out of which Rs.5.00 lacs in cash and Rs.15.00 lacs by three cheques were given by the complainant and an agreement to this extent was also entered. Thereafter the petitioner again demanded some money on various dates on which Rs.40.00 lacs in advance were given by the complainant to the petitioner and his brother. The petitioner Ashok Gairola also showed the power of attorney of his brother and his sister and a copy was also given to the complainant on which the complainant became satisfied. Thereafter the complainant several times asked the petitioner and co-accused to get the sale deed executed but they continued to refuse the same on the one pretext or another. When the complainant enquired further he came to know that the lands shown to be sold by the petitioner and co-accused was actually belonged to the Government and the petitioner and co-accused, by cheating the complainant, Rs.40.00 lacs fraudulently. When the complainant met with the petitioner, he threatened him to his life. After that the matter was investigated and the I.O. filed the charge sheet against the co-accused Arun Gairola u/s 420/406 IPC. Since the petitioner Ashok Gairola was absconding, hence the issue u/s 82 Cr.P.C. of proclamation was issued by the court below vide order dated 24.5.2010. Hence this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below has wrongly issued process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on 29.1.2010 charge sheet was submitted against the co-accused. However when the petitioner was absconding, a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him directing him to appear before the court on 6.6.2010. Thereafter the petitioner instead of appearing before the court below directly approached this Court which shows that the petitioner does not want to cooperate and intends to linger the investigation of the case. Even it is evident that the charge sheet against the co-accused Arun Gairola u/s 406/420 IPC has been filed. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court was perfectly justified in issuing proclamation against the petitioner u/s 82 Cr.P.C. In the light of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, there is no force in this petition. The C482 petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 11, 2010 Rdang