IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 405/2004 Karam Singh S/o Rupram @ Karam Singh S/o Sukhe Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Uttaranchal & another ..Respondents Sri Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the State. Sri A. K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Dated: 18-05-2010 [Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral)] By way of this petition, U/S 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for quashing the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 U/Ss 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. which has been registered as Criminal Case No. 3806/2002, Raj Kumar vs. Karam Singh & another, as well as setting aside the order dated 19-10-2002, passed by A.C.J.M. Roorkee in aforesaid criminal case and the order dated 31.12.2003, passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in criminal revision No. 41/2003, Karam Singh Vs. State. The record reveals that respondent No.2 filed a complaint in the court of ACJM Roorkee on 17.9.2002 against the petitioner and Sri Pal Kureti U/Ss 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. with the allegations that complaint’s father were three brothers Roopram, Ram Chandra and Jyoti. Roopram was eldest brother who died in the year 1962. He had a son Karam Singh who disappeared around the year 1964-65 when he was around 5-6 years old but the land of Roopram was recorded in the name of Karam Singh and came under the cultivatory possession of Ram Chandra and Jyoti. In government record Karam Singh S/o Roopram is recorded as ‘farar’ (missing). The accused Karam Singh taking benefit of missing Karam Singh illegally executed agreement of sale regarding the land recorded in the name of missing Karam Singh, by posing himself to be son of late Roopram and he later on in 1992 executed sale deeds of those lands. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant U/S 200 Cr.P.C. as well as the statements of his witnesses U/S 202 Cr.P.C. and after finding a prima facie case against the petitioner and one another summoned them to face trial U/Ss 465, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the summoning order both the accused filed criminal revisions before the learned Sessions Judge, and the learned Sessions vide common judgment and order dated 31-12-2003, dismissed the revisions. Feeling aggrieved by the summoning order as well as the dismissal order passed in the criminal revision the present petition has been filed for quashing these orders. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the submission that petitioner Karam Singh is the S/o late Roopram, who was the actual owner of disputed property and after his death the said property would devolve to his son the petitioner. It is a purely civil dispute hence the summoning order is abuse of process of court and the same as well as the entire proceeding of complaint case is liable to be quashed. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No.2, has made rival contention and contended that the petitioner is not the son of late Roopram. Son of Roopram was missing at his childhood and taking benefit of his name, the present petitioner wanted to grab the property in dispute by playing fraud. I do not find any substance in the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage. Perusal of summoning order clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate found a prima facie case against the petitioner and one another U/Ss 465, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. After perusal of evidence adduced by complainant the learned Magistrate found that the petitioner in connivance of co-accused Sripal Kukreti Village Development Officer made manipulation in Parivar Register and other revenue record and thereafter posing himself the son of Roopram, executed the sale deeds in respect of disputed land. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere with the summoning order as well as the order passed by the revisional court. I am also of the view that there is no flagrant injustice and abuse of process of court in this case. The evidence is still incomplete and hazy. This court while exercising the jurisdiction U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is not supposed to act as a trial Judge. The averments made in the petition are the disputed question of fact, which can be assessed and judged by the trial court. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility of the evidence at this stage. Any judgment rendered by me would amount to premature judgment. The applicant shall have an opportunity to place the evidence in his defence before the trial court where the matter shall be finally adjudicated after considering the entire evidence. I do not find any merit in this petition, at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim stay, dated 20-9-2004, stands vacated. ISB (B.C. Kandpal, J.)