IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 287/2005 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Paramjeet Batra & Others …….Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & Another ……Respondents Mr. S.C. Bhatt, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, for the State. None for the complainant/private respondent no. 2. 29th September, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the prayer has been made to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 723/2005 (chargesheet no. 32/2005), State v. Rajpal & 3 Others, as well as the order of cognizance dated 22.3.2005 passed thereupon. The said order of cognizance was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar against the four accused persons including all the three applicants, namely, Paramjeet Batra, Bhagwan Das, Deepak Tyagi besides one Rajpal for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 448 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that private respondent no. 2 Ram Awatar Agrawal, despite being served sufficiently, is not being represented by any Counsel. Hence, this Court has rendered hearing to learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Having heard, it appears that Ram Awatar Agrawal owns a number of shops in Khatima town of district Udham Singh Nagar. Once the co-accused Rajpal happened to be the 2 tenant of Ram Awatar Agrawal and lateron he vacated the shop. Thereafter Ram Awatar Agrawal came into contact with the applicant Paramjeet Batra, and appointed him the Manager of the shop. Ram Awatar Agrawal also invested rupees ten thousand to purchase the raw material for running the shop in the form of a hotel there. In due course of time, the business picked up at very fast pace fetching profit of about ` 1000/- to ` 1500/- per day. The greed engrossed Mr. Paramjeet Batra, who in collusion with other co-accused, hatched a plan to completely grab the hotel shop, excluding the dominion of Ram Awatar Agrawal. So, he filed a Civil Suite No. 23/2002, Paramjeet Batra v. Ram Awatar Agrawal, in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Khatima, seeking injunction, wherein learned Civil Judge passed an order of status quo on 22.12.2004. Ram Awatar Agrawal, on noticing the malafide of Paramjeet Batra, tried to lodge an FIR against him by moving an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, but the same was dismissed on 6.5.2004 due to his absence. Thereafter Ram Awatar Agrawal lodged an FIR on 4.1.2005 against seven persons including the present three applicants. This FIR adverts that after appointing Paramjeet Batra as Manager of the shop on 1.1.2002 and entrusting some money to him for purchasing the raw material for running the same, he forged a number of papers including sale deed of the shop with the aid and assistance of the co-accused persons and has grabbed the shop in question. When resisted, all the accused persons threatened Ram Awatar Agrawal either to accept ` 750/- per month as rent of the shop, otherwise he will be killed. 4. The investigation was made by the police which ended in submission of the chargesheet dated 20.2.2005 against all the applicants and one co-accused Rajpal for the offences as aforementioned. However, the Investigating Officer did find any offence to have been made out against the other three co-accused persons, which were named in the FIR. 3 5. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the matter vide impugned order dated 22.3.2005, against which this petition has been filed. As an interim measure, this Court granted an ad interim stay on 13.5.2005 seizing the further proceedings before the court below. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicants contended that a separate case under Section 406 IPC was lodged by Ram Awatar Agrawal against Paramjeet Batra, which resulted in acquittal on 9.2.2009. The certified copy of this judgment has been filed before this Court. A perusal of this judgment, passed in Case No. 177/2008 pertaining to Crime No. 46/2004, reveals that it was also a State case for criminal breach of trust for rupees fifty thousand given by Ram Awatar Agrawal to Paramjeet Batra. But during the pendecy of the trial, that money was returned to Ram Awatar Agrawal. Therefore, he did not like to proceed with the case further and deposed the evidence accordingly in the court. That was the basis of his acquittal. Hence, this judgment of acquittal cannot cast any shadow in any manner upon the case in hand. 7. Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court passed in the case of Kanwar Singh & Another v. State of Uttarakhand & Another, reported in 2010 (1) U.D. 97, wherein this Court has opined that if it is found that if a dispute of civil nature is given colour of criminal offence to harass the accused and to apply pressure on the accused for settling the score, then High Court must come forward invoking its power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent the abuse of process of law and must quash such proceedings. 8. Having gone through the above precedent, this Court is of the view that it is not applicable in the present 4 controversy because it is the settled position of law that even in a dispute of criminal nature there always remains some civil element. The above precedent is applicable only in that circumstance where the dispute is absolutely of the civil nature and the criminal proceedings have been initiated just to harass and exert pressure upon the opposite party. In the present case, the fabrication of the documents to grab the shop of Ram Awatar Agrawal is a purely criminal offence. 8. Learned Counsel for the applicants has argued that now Paramjeet Batra has vacated the shop in question. Mere vacation of the shop by Paramjeet Batra cannot obliterate his past acts of knavery, which have allegedly been done by him and his companions in order to grab the shop in question. Powers under Section 482 CrPC are not to be invoked so lightly as to undone and quash the every chargesheet, which has been submitted as a result of investigation by the police. 9. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 13.5.2005 passed by this Court is hereby vacated. 10. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 29.9.2011 Prabodh