IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Criminal Misc. Application No. 2 30 of 2004 Satendra Kumar S/o Late Kabool Chand R/o Raipur Parva Dun, District Dehradun --- Petitioner. Vs. 1-State of Uttaranchal through Home Secretary Dehradun. 2-Jai Kumar, Naib Tehsildar Tehsil Dehra District Dehradun ---- Respondents. Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State. Sri Lalit Miglani holding brief for Sri Pankaj Miglani Advocate for the respondent No.2. Dated: 08-1-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition, U/S 482 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought the relief to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case No. 86 of 2004 State Vs. Satendra Kumar, pending before the C.J.M. Dehradun, U/Ss 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. 2- Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner with the allegation that he played fraud and forgery in some mutation case. The police investigated the matter the after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge sheet took cognizance against the petitioner and issued summons to face trial. The petition has been filed on the ground that the applicant has acted on the orders passed by the superior authorities and the omission on his part is not deliberate. The material was supplied to the police but the police without considering the same submitted charge sheet and the learned Magistrate also did not consider the material made available by the petitioner and took cognizance in a mechanical way. 3- Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 denying the allegations made in the petition. It has been averred in the counter affidavit that the forgery was committed in the revenue records upon the misrepresentation of the petitioner who concealed the factum of pendency of appeal. Further the npetitioner forged and fabricated the parwana Amal Daramad and as such clear cut case of offences 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. has been made out. The police has rightly submitted the charge sheet in the case. 4- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5- After having considered the submission raised by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the material on record, I find that no abuse of process of Court is there in the instant case. The ground taken by the petitioner in his petition are disputed question of facts and this Court which exercising the jurisdiction U/S 482 Cr.P.C. can not embark upon an inquiry about the reliability of the allegations made against the petitioners. This Court has not to separate the grain from the chaff in the proceedings like this, because that will amount to pre-trial of the case. This is the job of trial Court. The trial Court after adducing the evidence by the parties will be able to ajudge the correctness of the allegations. I do not find any ground to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner at this stage. 6- For the above reasons the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7- Accordingly the petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 22-5-2004 stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB