IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 36 of 2008 Ranbir Singh S/o Sri Sujan Singh R/o Kulri, Mussoorie, Dehradun. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 3. Suresh Kumar Puri S/o late Sri H.C. Puri R/o 1, Haridwar Road, P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate present for respondent No. 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2704 of 2004, State Vs. Karan Singh Chauhan and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 467, 468, 420, 466, 120-B of I.P.C., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 3) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 3 got lodged a first information report against the five accused, including the petitioner Ranbir Singh, alleging that a 2 forged sale deed dated 28th of May 1993, was got prepared after getting a forged ‘Will’ purported to have been executed by late Mr. Surya Kumar Puri, who was co-owner with the accused Karan Singh Chauhan, in the property known as ‘Radha Bhawan’ in Mussoorie. It is alleged by the complainant that he came to know of the forgery only in the year 2001. It is further alleged in the first information report that the present petitioner Ranbir Singh drafted the forged sale deed and the forged ‘Will’. It is also stated in the first information report that to commit the forgery, stamp papers were purchased on back dates. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against all the five accused. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is an Advocate, and merely for the reason that he drafted the deed, it cannot be said that he had connivance with the other accused in commission of crime. In reply to this, learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that the forensic report received goes against the present petitioner and indicates that it was the petitioner who had purchased the stamp papers on back dates to facilitate the successful commission of the forgery. 5) Learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the State pointed out that Criminal Misc. Petition (C-482) No. 242 of 2008, moved on behalf of the accused Karan Singh Chauhan has been dismissed by this 3 Court on 08.08.2008. Another Criminal Misc. Petition (C-482) No. 241 of 2008, moved on behalf of co-accused R.S. Panwar, has also been dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2008. 6) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court finds that the plea of innocence raised by the petitioner before this Court is factual in nature, and in the circumstances of the case, can be examined only by the trial court, after recording the evidence. It is not desirable on the part of this Court to go into the factual disputes raised by the present petitioner, in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., on the basis of the incomplete evidence. 7) Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Interim order dated 11.01.2008, passed by this Court, is hereby vacated. It is observed that if the petitioner Ranbir Singh surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 13, 2010. H. Negi 4