IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Case No. 948 of 2010 Lokesh Bhatt aged about 50 years, S/o Late Radha Kirshna Bhatt, R/o Vasant Vihar P.S. Vasant Vihar District Dehradun. ….…..Petitioner Versus 1- State of Uttarakhand. 2- Rajpal Singh Rawat S/o Sri D.S. Rawat R/o Cliff Hall Estate Crikaij, Mussoorie, District Dehradun ……Respondents Mr. K.S.Verma, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, A G.A., present for the State. Mr. G. K. Verma, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Amish Tiwari, present for the respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashing of summoning order dated 03.02.2010, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun Camp Mussorrie in criminal complaint case no. 12 of 2009, Rajpal Singh Rawat Vs. Premier Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Lokesh Bhatt. 3) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2. Same be taken on record. Delay condonation application no. 1080 of 2011, for 2 condonation of delay in filing counter affidavit stands allowed. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle is said to have been purchased in the year 2001, and the criminal proceedings are initiated in the year 2005. It is also pleaded that the petitioner has no connection with the M/s Premier Motors Pvt. Ltd., from which, complainant said to have purchased a vehicle, in respect of which a false registration slip is said to have been given to the complainant. 5) Learned counsel for the complainant pleaded that the complainant came to know of the fact that registration is false, only in the year 2005, after he approached the Regional Transport Office. It is also alleged that petitioner was working with the M/s Premier Motors Pvt. Ltd., from where vehicle was purchased. 6) In the above circumstances, in view of the factual pleas raised before this Court, this court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. 7) Therefore, without expressing any opinion, as to final merits of the case, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed summarily, with the observation that if the petitioner, Lokesh Bhatt, surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 14.09.2011 JM