IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 554/2004 Ghanshyam Singh and another .. Petitioners. Versus State of Uttaranchal & another .. Respondents. Mr. Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State. Mr. Karan Anand, holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Tandon Advocate for the respondent No.2. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.(Oral) Dated: 15-04-2010 By way of this petition, U/S 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing the charge sheet dated 13.3.2004, submitted in case crime No. 282/2003, U/Ss 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and the consequential proceedings which are pending as Criminal Case No. 888 of 2004, State Vs. Ghanshyam and another, pending before C.J.M. Dehradun. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged by the complainant No.2, stating therein that the applicants played a fraud to him in the transaction of the land containing a shop also therein. The police investigated the matter and thereafter submitted the charge sheet against the applicants on 13.3.2004. Hence, the petition. Heard Sri Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondent/State and Sri Karan Anand, holding 2 brief of Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the evidence and material collected by the I.O. no offence is made out U/S 420, 120-B, 467,468 and 471 I.P.C. against the applicants. He has also submitted that as per the prosecution case the sale deed was executed by the petitioner Ghanshyam Singh in favour of the wife of respondent No.2. The allegations made in the complaint that the shop was not existing at the spot, while at the time of executing the sale deed the opposite party No.2 very much knew with regard to the existence of the shop and thereafter the sale consideration was settled. Hence, the allegations made by the complainant by way of the F.I.R. against respondent No.2 are quite fabricated and concocted. He also submitted that the offence is of civil nature, hence the criminal proceedings cannot proceed against the applicants. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has made the rival contention that bare perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that there is an element of the criminal offence against the petitioners, hence merely on the basis that the matter relates to the civil nature, the criminal proceeding cannot be stopped. Having considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this court is not supposed to act as a trial judge in the proceeding U/S 482 Cr.P.C. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry at this stage, specially 3 under the circumstances when the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. I do not find any flagrant injustice caused to the applicants at this stage. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim stay order dated 6-12-2004 stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB