IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 509 of 2004 Rohit Mittal … Applicant Vs State of Uttaranchal & another … Opp. Parties Sri L.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought relief for quashing the summoning order dated 20.05.2004 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate II, Haridwar and further staying the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 521 of 2003, Bhopal Vs Promod Kumar & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Sri Bhopal Singh lodged a complaint against the applicant and some other persons under Sections 420, 467, 471 of I.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned alleging therein that the applicant along with other co-accused got some documents signed (thumb impression) by Mr. Shankar on the pretext that he will get the old age pension. It has further alleged that on 10.05.2001, the accused persons came to the house of Mr. Shankar and asked him to hand over the possession of the land which was purchased by them but the same was denied. Thereafter, Mr. Shankar came to know that the accused persons have got prepared power of attorney and on that basis executed a sale deed. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., summoned the applicant to face the trial vide order dated 20.05.2004. 2 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate, the applicant/petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court for quashing the same. 4. Heard Sri L.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before the Court that he had purchased 1/3rd share of the land in dispute and he has paid Rs. 1,10,000/- to the person concerned. In order to support his case he has invited my attention towards photocopy of sale deed dated 30.08.2000, power of attorney and Khautauni, which is annexed as annexure No. 1, 2 and 3 to the petition. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at great length, I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. I have gone through the summoning order dated 20.05.2004 passed by the trial court. The learned Magistrate in his cummoning order has given the reasons for taking cognizance against the accused/petitioner under the aforesaid sections on finding a prima facie case and I do not find any illegality and infirmity in it. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. No abuse of process of Court has been committed in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate while issuing summon to the accused/applicants. The applicant will have an opportunity before the trial Judge to put forth his defence. Any judgment rendered by me would amount to premature judgment where the evidence is still 3 incomplete and hazy. I do not find any merit in this case at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 21.08.2009 ASWAL