1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appln (C482)No. 176 of 2005 Kantesh Keshwani S/O Shri Mohan Lal Keshwani R/O H.No 57, Sindhi Colony, P.S Shashtri Nagar, Jodhpur District Jodhpur, Rajasthan ………………………. Applicant. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Judicial Magistrate Roorkee District Haridwar 3. Ajay Samtani S/O Shri Srichand Samtani R/O H. No 359, Chowmandi Roorkee, P.S Gangnaher Roorkee District Haridwar. …………..Opposite parties Shri Rajendra Singh, Advocate present for the petitioner Shri M.A.Khan, Holding Brief for respondent no.1/State Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of the this petition, moved Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 1292 of 2004, Ajay Samtani vs. Kantesh Keshwani, relating to offences punishable under section 420, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Gangnaher, Roorkee, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. 2 (2) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner (accused) Kantesh Keshwani and the respondent no.3 Ajay Samtani(complainant) are relatives. It is said that both of them purchased a property situated in Shafipur Rajendra Nagar, Roorkee through a registered sale deed dated 30th of January 2003. Each of the two purchasers had equal shares in the property. As per the complainant, petitioner Kantesh Keshwani executed a deed (power of attorney) after accepting Rs 2,62,300 from the respondent no.3 (with intention to transfer his share to the complainant). However, later the said deed was withdrawn but Rs. 2,62,300 were not returned to the complainant. The complainant’s case is that the petitioner has transferred his share and as such the complainant has been got cheated. When protested he was, threatened of dire consequences. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute between parties is purely of civil nature. It is further pointed out that a suit no. 25 of 2004 was instituted by the respondent no.3 for cancellation of the deed executed by the petitioner. (4) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the papers on record, this court is of the view, that had there been no allegation of transfer of Rs. 2,62,300 to the petitioner, it could have been said that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature, and no criminal liability is attracted. But the trial court in the impugned order by which the accused (petitioner) is summoned, after recording statement of the complainant under section 200, and that of 3 PW1 Raj Kumar and PW2 Yogendra Singh, under section 202 of Cr.P.C, has come to the conclusion that it is a case of cheating of Rs. 2,62,300 and also of criminal intimidation. Merely for the reason that recovery of said amount is also sought in the suit, it can not be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. (5) For the reasons as discussed above, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of this case i.e. whether the allegation made in the complaint are true are not, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner Kantesh Keshwani surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasoble delay. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned. Dt.17.05.2010 NP (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)