IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 770 of 2005 Naveen Bist S/o Shri P.S.Bist R/o 49, Subhash Road, Dehradun District Dehradun ………………..Applicant Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) 2. Station House Officer Police Station Raipur District Dehradun 3. Nagar Nigam, Dehradun through its Mukhya Nagar Adhikari. ………….........Respondents Shri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, present for the petitioner Smt. Mamta Bisht,A.G.A., present for respondents no. 1 and 2 Shri Sunil Upadhyay, Advocate, present for the respondent no.3 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the charge sheet filed against Suresh Kumar and others under section 420, 120B I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, (C.B.I.) Dehradun (arisen out of Criminal Misc. Case No. M54 of 2005). 2 (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Sohan Lal was the owner of the property in question who executed the will 18.02.1975, in favour of his sons Suresh and Bhola Nath. The said two sons executed power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner Naveen Bist and Vipin Mallik who in turn executed sale deeds of the property in favour of various persons. It is submitted that on behalf of the petitioner that the stand taken by the Nagar Nigam Dehradun (respondent no.3) the complainant that the public land was sold by the petitioner, is wrong. (4) The aforesaid pleas raised in the petition are factual in nature which can not be examined by this court in its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Apart from this, perusal of the copy of Will dated 18.02.1975, shows it is no where mentioned that Khasra No. 520 and Khasra No. 530 belonged to the executant of the will. The complainant has alleged in the First Information Report that Khasra No. 520 is River Bad and Khasra No. 530 is Chuna Bhatta (Lime Kiln). Merely, for the reason that Chuna Bhatta is mentioned by the petitioner in the sale deed executed by him, by itself does not make him owner of the public land. (5) In the above circumstances, without expressing 3 any opinion as to final merits of the case, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed. The interim order dated 09.11.2005, passed by this court stands hereby vacated. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.20.06.2011 N.P