IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application No. 527 of 2008 1. Smt. Alka Rani W/o Vijay Kumar 2. Vijay Kumar S/o Dharam Veer Both R/o S-28 M Shivlok Colony, Ranipur More, P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Home Secretary, Dehradun. 2. Sri Sudarshan Kumar Thakur S/o Late Jagdish Thakur R/o H.No. 350, Type –2, Sector –4, B.H.E.L., Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for respondent State. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7423 of 2007 (arisen out of Crime No. 354 of 2007), State Vs. Alka and another, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B of I.P.C., police station Kotwali Jawalapur, 2 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant / respondent No. 2 lodged a first information report, registered as Crime No. 354 of 2007, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 of I.P.C., against the petitioners Alka Rani and Vijay Kumar, alleging that the two, on 31.10.2005, transferred the land in dispute (situated in plot No. 45-B of Bhagwant Puram, Jagjitpur, Kankhal, Haridwar) to the complainant and his wife for a consideration of Rs. 1,03,000/- without having any authority to transfer the same. It is alleged in the first information report that the complainant is a handicapped person and got cheated of the amount paid as consideration. On investigation the police has submitted chargesheet against the petitioners before the court concerned. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners have committed no cheating, as the petitioners were themselves got cheated by one Kasturi Lal Nanda, who transferred the aforesaid plot to the petitioner No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the non-encumbrance 3 certificate (copy of which is Annexure –3 to the petition) and stated that the conduct on the part of the petitioners is bona fide, and there was no criminal intention in transferring the land to the complainant. The perusal of the non-encumbrance certificate referred by the petitioners itself shows that the property belongs not only to one Kasturi Lal Nanda, but also to one Rama Kumari. The petitioners who plead that they had purchased the plot from Kasturi Lal Nanda have no explanation at this stage what happened to the share of the another co-owner. It is also pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that they themselves lodged a first information report against Kasturi Lal Nanda and Rama Kumari. However, it appears that investigation on said first information report resulted in final report. 5) In the above circumstances, whether the petitioners had any criminal intention in executing the sale deed in favour of the complainant or not, is a question of fact which can be determined only by the trial court after recording evidence adduced before it. This Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot say at this stage on the basis of half baked evidence that the ingredients of the offences are made out or not, nor could it be said to be a case of abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly submitted that they are ready to pay back the amount to the complainant. However, this 4 Court cannot direct during trial to do this, on its part at this stage. 6) For the reasons as discussed above, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed. Interim order dated 13.08.2008, passed by this Court, stands vacated. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 09, 2010. H. Negi