IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 824 of 2011 Kausar Ali S/o Sri Amir Ahmad R/o Village Sarai P.S.Jawalapur Districrt Hardwar ………………..petitioner Versus 1. The State of Uttarakhand through Home Secretary Dehradun. 2. Sarafat S/o Sri Liyakat 3. Muzammil S/o Sri Liyakat 4. Rashid S/o Sri Rifakat 5. Chammu Khan S/o Sri Mazeed All R/o Village Salampur, Mahdood, P.S. Ranipur, District Hardwar ………….Respondents Shri Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, present for the petitioner Shri B.S. Parihar., Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of 2 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.01.2011, passed by IInd Fast Track Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Hardwar, in Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2010, Kausar Ali vs. State, whereby said court has affirmed the order dated 23.09.2009, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar, in Complaint Case No. 222 of 2008. (3) Brief facts of the case are that, complainant Kausar Ali, entered into agreement with the respondents no. 2 and 3 for sale of Plot/Khasra No. 2076 and 2078, situated in Village Salampur, Mahdood. However, said agreement appears to be an unregistered document. A First Information Report was got lodged by the petitioner by moving an application under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., with the allegation that complainant got cheated of ` 5 lakh which he paid to the respondents no.2 and 3 towards the consideration for purchase of the land. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted final report, whereafter the petitioner filed protest petition, and the same was treated as criminal complaint. The Magistrate recorded the statements under section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., and found that there was no substance in the criminal complaint as the agreement which was written of 10 ` stamp paper was in-admissible in evidence, nor was it filed. The revisional court also took the same view, and dismissed 3 the revision filed by the petitioner. (4) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and after going through the impugned order passed by the courts below, this court finds no illegality in the order challenged before this court. (5) Therefore, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.14.09.2011 N.P