IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 374 of 2010 Vimal Mehrotra S/O Shri Vishwanath Mehrotra, R/O Kosi Road Town, Ramnagar, District Nainital ……………….. Applicant. Versus 1. Ramesh Chawla, S/O Late Shri Hans Raj Chawla, R/O B-32, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi. 2. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary Home, Secretariat, Dehradun. …………Respondents Shri A.Rab & Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate present for the petitioner Shri B.S.Negi, Advocate present for respondent no.1 Shri M.A.Khan, Brief Holder, Advocate present for respondent no.2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2) By means of the this petition, moved Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 131 of 2010, State vs. Permanand and others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ram Nagar. (3) Brief facts of the case are that complainant Ramesh Chawla has initiated the criminal proceedings against five accused alleging that he has been cheated of more than 32 lakhs. As per the prosecution story at the instigation of accused/petitioner Vimal Mehrotra, co-accused Jitendra Arora and Prakash Sharma, complainant agreed to purchase land of co-accused Parmanand and Sanjay Patalni, for which he has paid 32 lakhs on different dates. It is further alleged that Parmanand and Sanjay Patalni had no title over the land in question and as such that the complainant got cheated. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no role in the alleged cheating mentioned in the First Information Report. It is also pointed out that a Civil Suit filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 has already been dismissed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nainital. It is also contended that amount, if any, taken from the complainant was received by co-accused Parmanand and Sanjay patalni. (5) On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent Ramesh Chawla, it is contended that Criminal Misc. (C-482) petition filed by co-accused Jitendra Arora, with similar role, has already been dismissed by this court vide its order dated 18.02.2010. (6) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this court finds that though as to the title of the land the findings given by the Civil Court are binding between the parties but as far as the fact whether the complainant was actually cheated of Rupees Thirty two lakhs or not, and by whom, is yet to be examined by the trial court. It is not desirable on the part of this court to go into factual dispute raised by the petitioner at this stage in its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. It requires recording of evidence on the part of the trial court before coming to the conclusion as to what extent wrongful loss, if any, suffered by the complainant, and at whose hands. (7) Therefore, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if Vimal Mehrotra (petitioner) surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt: 11.05.2010 NP