IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Criminal Misc. Application N o. 173 of 2004. Nandan Singh Gosai S/o Late Kedar Singh Gosai, R/o 14, Vishnu Road, P.S. Dalanwala, Dehradun … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttaranchal, 2. Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o Prem Chandra Sharma, R/o Village Herbertpur P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun .. Respondents. Sri A.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State. Dated: 03-01-2008. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought the relief for setting aside the order dated 14-1-2004, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case No. 445/2003, Smt. Nirmala Devi Vs. Nandan Singh and others, U/Ss 167, 218, 465, 468, 120-B I.P.C. Further prayer has been made to quash the proceedings of the above criminal complaint case. 2- Perusal of record reveals that respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the applicant and five other persons, before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, which was transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Dehradun for hearing. The Judicial Magistrate recorded the statements of the complaint and her witnesses U/Ss 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and after considering the statements as well as the documents produced by the complainant in support of her case, found prima facie case U/Ss 167, 218, 465, 468, 120-B I.P.C. against the accused/applicant and other co-accused and accordingly, vide impugned order dated 14-1-2004, took cognizance in the matter. Feeling aggrieved by the above order the petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing the said order as well as the entire proceedings of the criminal complaint case. The petitioner has taken the ground that he was never posted asLekhpal of the area Rekholi in which village Galjwali comes. It has also been alleged that the name of Durga Prasad @ Lalita Prasad was mutated on 8-8-86 on the basis of the order passed by Assistant Collector, Dehradun in case No. 27/85-86. There is no evidence that the petitioner has forged any revenue record, therefore, the summoning order is an abuse of the process of the court and the same is liable to be quashed against the petitioner. 3- The respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the petition and alleged that in collusion with the applicant, and under his instructions, the other co-accused framed forged revenue record with criminal intention to deprive the respondent of her fundamental legal rights, in order to cause her great financial loss and injury. The learned Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction legally and properly in accordance with the provisions of law and after due consideration of evidence on record while passing the cognizance order. The petition has no leg to stand and is liable to be dismissed out rightly. 4- I have heard Sri A.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. and have gone through the material on record. 5- After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate before taking cognizance, I find no abuse of process of Court in the instant case. The learned Magistrate, after considering the statements of the complainant U/S 200 Cr.P.C. and that of her witnesses Prem Chand Sharma and Shanti Swaroop recorded U/S 202 Cr.P.C., was satisfied that prima facie case U/Ss 167, 218, 465, 468, 120-B I.P.C. was made out against the petitioner and other co-accused and accordingly has taken cognizance in the matter. I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the summoning order and no interference is needed by this Court in above order. 6- So far as the grounds taken by the petitioner that at the relevant period he was not posted in the Circle concerned and the mutation has been got done on the orders of the Assistant Collector of the Area, the same are disputed question of fact and cannot be adjudicated in the petition U/S 482 of the Cr.P.C., particularly when the evidence is yet to come. This Court at this stage has no evidence to assess. These facts will be adjudicated by the trial Court after the parties adduce their evidence. The petitioner will have full opportunity to defend his case before the trial court and adduce evidence in support of his assertions. 7- In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8- Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 15-4-2004 stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB