IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 401 of 2010 1. Parmanand @ Prem Ballabh S/o Shri Khima Nand 2. Sanjay Padalni S/o Shri Pramanand @ Prem Ballabh Both R/o village Dhikuli Tehsil and P.S. Ramnagar, District Nainital. ………..…Applicants/petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun 2. Ramesh Chawla S/o Late Shri Hans Raj Chawla R/o B-32, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi. ....……Opposite parties/respondents Shri Mahesh Chandra Bansal, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Shri B.B.S Negi, Advocate, present for the complainant / respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 2 1973(for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 131 of 2010, State vs. Parmanand & others, relating to offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital. 3. Earlier similar petition was filed before this Court in respect of same criminal case which was registered as criminal misc. application (C482) No. 194 of 2010, and dismissed after hearing the petitioners on 09.03.2010. The present petitioners have disclosed said fact and filed the copy of said order as Annexure-11 to this petition. 4. The ground on which new petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been moved is that vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2010, Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Nainital, in civil suit No. 123 of 2008, has dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for injunction against the petitioners. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 2 has alleged in the first information report that he was cheated of more than rupees thirty two lacs (32,00,000/-) at the 3 hands of the petitioners and other accused who projected themselves that the land in which petitioners were recorded in class IV in the revenue record, could be transferred to the complainant, and accepted the aforesaid amount. It is pleaded by the petitioners that neither the petitioners were Bhumidhars of the land nor any registered agreement was executed by the petitioners as such on the face of it the prosecution story is false. In support of the present petition now petitioners are armed with copy of judgment and order dated 17.03.2010 (copy Annexure- 12 of this petition) passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Nainital, in civil suit No. 123 of 2008, whereby the said court has dismissed the suit of the complainant/respondent No. 2 for injunction against the petitioners and other accused, directing them not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff/complainant. 6. No doubt as far as the title of the petitioners and their right to transfer the land to anyone is concerned, finding of the civil court does have an effect over the proceedings in the criminal case. The finding that no registered agreement was executed by the petitioners is also binding on the criminal court. But the question as to whether petitioners (accused) 4 received an amount of rupees thirty two lacs (32,00,000/-) from the complainant, and whether the complainant got cheated is a question of fact, which can be examined by the criminal court (trial court). 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record this Court is not inclined to interfere with the criminal proceedings in question, in the circumstances as mentioned above. Therefore without prejudice to the rights of the parties this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed, with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned and move bail application, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of by the court concerned without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:10.05.2010 parul 5