IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 1189 of 2010 Prem Chand S/o Raghuveer R/o Village Salempur-Mahadood P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar ………..…Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. Shri Changa, S/o Late Karam Singh R/o Village Salempur- Mahadood P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar. ....……Respondents Shri Lalit Tiwari, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Smt. Mamta Bisht,A.G.A., present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 664 of 2008, State Vs. Seva Ram & others, relating to offence punishable under section 420 I.P.C, P.S. Jwalapur, 2 District Haridwar. 3. Notices were issued to the respondent no. 2 thrice, but no one has turned up on behalf of respondent no. 2 Changa. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that registered agreements of sale were executed in March 2006, by mother of the respondent no. 2, and uncle of respondent no. 2 to sell the land in question to the petitioner. Copies of said registered agreements are annexed as Annex. 4 to the petition. It is further pointed out that a suit no. 103 of 2006, was filed by one Seva Ram, and present petitioner for specific performance of contracts in the year 2006. In said suit it was admitted by Smt. Sukkhi (mother of respondent no. 2) that the amount was received by her as consideration for sale of the land. Copies of said documents are annexed as Annex. 5 and 6 to the petition. Annex. 8 shows that amount of ` 5,50,000/- were deposited on 06.03.2006, in the account of Smt. Sukkhi (natural guardian and mother of respondent no. 2),and ` 2,50,000/- were deposited in the account of Phool Singh in the Syndicate Bank. 3 5. All above pleas are factual in nature which cannot be examined by this Court in its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.. It is desirable that such pleas be examined by the trial court, if raised, after recording evidence in the case. 6. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the State, and after going through the papers on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. 7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner Prem Chand surrenders before the court concerned his bail application shall be heard, and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Stay application no. 1404 of 2010, also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 08.08.2011