1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appln No. 254 of 2010 1. Zahid Ali, S/O Nasir Khan R/O Station Road Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Babu Ram, S/O Nathu Lal, R/O Tanakpur Road, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Rakesh Kumar S/O Nagar Mal Sharma, R/O Ward No.1, Tanakpur, Champawat 4. Nagar Mal Sharma, Jisukhlal Sharma R/O Ward No. 1, Tanakpur, Champawat 5. Kamal Rastogi S/O Babu Ram R/O Tanakpur Road Khatima, Udam singh Nagar ……………. Applicants Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through the Secretary, Home Affairs, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. Union of India, through the Secretary of Defence, Govt. of India, New Delhi 3. Shri. D.N. Yadav Defence Estate Officer, Bareilly Zone Bareilly Cantt UP. 4. Station Officer, P.S Banbasa, through the Superintendent of Police District Champawat …………..Respondents Shri R.S.Sammal, Advocate present for the petitioner Shri T.A Khan Brief Holder for the respondent no.1 & 4 2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for respondents no.1 & 4 (2) By means of the this petition, moved Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners have sought quashing of the charge sheet submitted by respondent no. 4, which is registered as Criminal Case No. 84 of 2010, State vs. Sunil Kumar and others, relating to offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., Police Station Banbasa, District Champawat, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are contractors. Attention of this Court is drawn to the report of Military Estate Officer (copy of this Annexure - 10 to the petition) and it is contended that the petitioners had deposited the amount for the trees for which contract was taken and if the co accused Sunil Kumar, who was as official of the Defence Ministry did not deposit it in the proper account, the contractors can not be held liable. (4) Whether the petitioners complicity was there with Sunil Kumar or not in commission of crime, relating to illegal felling of 55 trees, is a question of fact which can not be examined by this Court in its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is for the trial Court to see after recording evidence 3 whether there is complicity on the part of the contractors or not, as alleged by the prosecution. (5) In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial. The petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed summarily with the observation that if the petitioners Zahid Ali, Babu Ram, Rakesh Kumar, Nagar Mal Sharma and Kamal Rastogi surrender before the Court concerned, and move application for bail, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Stay application No. 236/2010 also stands disposed of) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.29.3.2010 Nahid