IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1306 of 2011 Gyan Prakash S/O Late Sri Jagdish Prasad, R/O 16 Gandhi Chowk, Mussoorie, District Dehradun. … Petitioner. Versus Sri Ram Kumar Goyal S/O Late Sri Shyam Lal, R/O Shop No. 15, Gandhi Chowk, Mussoorie, District Dehradun. … Respondent. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A.Rab, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. Date July 06, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 6490 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16-6-2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun in P.A. Case No. 34 of 2009 (Annexure No. 1 to the petition). Petitioner has also prayed that the stay application dated 16-5-2011 and to stay further proceeding of the aforesaid case (P.A.Case No. 34 of 2009, Ram Kumar Vs. Gyan Prakash) pending before the Prescribed Authority during the pendency of proceeding under Section 340 of the Cr. P.C. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent herein moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of shop in question against the petitioner on the ground of bona fide need of his son Sankalp, who is allegedly educated unemployed person to settle him in an independent business. The petitioner has filed his objection/written statement against the release application. It also appears that affidavits purporting to be sworn in by Mr. Sankalp Goyal and one Smt. Renu Goyal, wife of the respondent herein were filed in the case. It appears that the petitioner moved an applications bearing Misc. Case No. 3 of 2011 Gyan Prakash Vs. Ram Kumar and Misc. Case No. 4 of 2011, Gyan Prakash Vs. Ram Kumar and another 2 under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia on the grounds that the signature of Mr. Sankalp Goyal has been forged fabricated on the affidavit filed on behalf of Sankalp Goyal and that the affidavit filed by Smt. Renu Goyal did not contain true averments. It also appears that the petitioner moved an application before the Prescribed Authority with a prayer to stay further proceeding in the P.A.Case No. 34 of 2009 on the ground of pendency of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. registered as Misc. Case Nos. 3 of 2011 and 4 of 2011. The respondent filed objection against the said application for stay inter alia on the ground that there is no bar in continuing the proceedings of release application despite the pendency of applications under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The learned Prescribed Authority after hearing both the parties has observed that in the P.A. Case that the evidence of both the parties have been concluded and the case is lying at the stage of arguments. The learned Prescribed Authority has further observed that the release application has to be decided on its own merits and the bona fide need of the landlord (father of Mr. Sankalp Goyal) and the merit of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has no bearing in the case. The Prescribed Authority also observed that the application for stay of the proceedings has been moved belatedly at the stage of arguments just to prolong the decision in the matter. On these grounds the application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the order impugned. I have pondered over the matter. Undisputedly, the application for release has been moved by the father of Mr. Sankalp Goyal, whose signatures in the affidavit dated 9-8-2010 have been questioned in application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Indisputably the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was moved in the year 2011 and it appears that the case has been pending at the stage of arguments when the application was made by the petitioner. It is obvious that the merit of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has yet to be examined by 3 the Prescribed Authority. In my view, the pendency of applications under Section 340 Cr.P.C. would have no bearing upon the merit of the proceeding of release application and the learned Prescribed Authority has rightly observed proceedings of release application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 can be stayed on account of pendency of those applications. The applications under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. shall be decided on their own merits by the Prescribed Authority in accordance with law. For the reasons and discussion above, I am of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed outright at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. Costs easy. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP