IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 959/2006 Rishipal …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Ors. …….Respondents July 20, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. HC Pathak, Advocate for the respondent no. 3. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the chargesheet and the summoning order dated 2.12.2003 passed in Criminal Case No. 2094 of 2006, State v. Rishipal under Section 420, 468 IPC pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee Facts, in brief, are that respondent no. 3 Surendra Kumar lodged an FIR with the averments that he is the owner of land situated at Khasra No. 136/3/2 comprising 0.410 hectare in Lalwala Mazmana, PS Ranipur and he is also in the possession of the said land. But the petitioner showed himself as owner of the said land and committed fraud and sold the aforesaid land to Ratiram on 14.9.1998. He came to know about this on 7.10.2003 when he perused the record at the Registry Office, Roorkee. On the basis of this FIR, a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 420, 468 IPC. After the investigation, the I.O. submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner and thereafter the learned ACJM, Roorkee took cognizance of the offence and passed the summoning order dated 2.12.2003 against the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in this argument due to the reason that from the perusal of the contents of FIR and other evidence collected by the I.O., a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections. Even otherwise, the dispute involves factual question which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. If the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and the statements of witnesses recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been summoned. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of Court. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 28.11.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 20.7.2010 PRABODH 2