IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL STAY APPLICATION NO.8409 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.837 OF 2010 Anil Kumar ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and two others ……… Respondents Dated: October 7, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, holding brief of Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2. None for respondent no.3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of impugned order dated 23.8.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.425 of 2009, Kamal Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and the impugned FIR of case crime no.280 of 2010, registered with Police Station Kotwali Jawalapur, District Haridwar, relating to offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC). Facts, in brief, are that respondent no.3 Kamal Kumar Chaurasia moved an application u/s 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the court of CJM Haridwar with the averments that on 24.1.2007 the petitioner and respondent no.2 entered into an registered agreement for the sale consideration of ` 5 lakhs, out of which, ` 3 lakhs was paid to the petitioner by the respondent no.3 and the rest was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. It is alleged that the petitioner fixed the date for the execution of sale deed on 5.10.2007 and thereafter the date was extended from 5.10.2007 to 2 3.12.2008 but even then the petitioner did not execute the sale deed in favour of respondent no.3. It is further alleged that on 3.3.2009 the respondent no.3 went to the registrar office where the petitioner did not turn up for the execution of sale deed. Thereafter, respondent no.3 enquired from Tehsil Haridwar and then he came to know that the petitioner Anil Kumar was not the owner of the said land on 24.1.2007. In fact one Smt. Harsh Arora is the owner of said land. It is further alleged that the petitioner has played fraud upon the respondent no.3 and he has grabbed the money of respondent no.3. With these averments, respondent no.3 moved an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before CJM, Haridwar, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent no.3 preferred a revision in the court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, vide his order dated 23.8.2010 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 21.11.2009 and further remanded the matter back to the trial court. Thereafter, learned CJM Haridwar, in view of the impugned revisional order, passed an order and directed to lodge the FIR and thereafter on 19.9.2010 the impugned FIR was lodged. There are specific allegations against the petitioner in the First Information Report. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and that of learned Government Advocate for the State and the contents of the impugned First Information Report and facts and circumstances of the case indicates that a prima facie case under the aforesaid sections is made out against the petitioner. In view of above, impugned order dated 23.8.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar, appears to be correct and justified as per law and, therefore, requires no interference. 3 Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief at this stage. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (Stay Application No. 8409 of 2010 also stands dismissed). (Dharam Veer, J.) 7.10.2010 RG