Court No. 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crimical Misc. Application No. 98 of 2004 R. Prasad s/o Sh. K. P. Penuli R/o A-43 A.D.D.A. Flats, Munirka, Delhi, presently R/o 21 Doon Vihar Jakhan Dehradun, District Dehradun ...Applicant Vs. 1- State of Uttaranchal 2- Dr. M. Kuriyal R/o 56 Haridwar Road, Dehradun, District Dehradun .... Respondents Sri Vinod Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant. Learned A.G.A. for respondent no.1. Sri L. K. Tiwari, Advocate, for respondent no. 2. Dated: February 14, 2008 Hon'ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought the relief for setting aside the criminal proceedings in Case No. 121/2003, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 408 I.P.C., in case crime no. 278/2003, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. The facts giving rise to the petition in short are that respondent no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 408 of I.P.C. and criminal case no. 121/2004 was registered in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. The petitioner has filed this petition for setting aside the proceedings of the criminal case on the ground that the matter is of a civil nature between two directors and proceeding is pending before the competent court and no offence is made out against the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 has filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition. Heard Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1, Sri L. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. After going through the record as well as the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties, I find no abuse of process of court in the instant case. The points raised in the petition are disputed questions of facts and the same can be judged after the parties lead the evidence. The disputed questions of facts cannot be judged by me at this stage, where the evidence is still and hazy and furthermore the petitioner shall have full opportunity to place his defence before the trial court. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court in the criminal proceedings going on against the petitioner/accused. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 05.03.2004, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J) SP