IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 404 of 2010 Anil Kala S/o Late Shri R.P. Kala R/o House no. 94/21,Dharampur Haridwar Road, opposite LIC Building Dehradun, District Dehradun ……..…Applicant Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Home Secretary, Dehradun. 2. Manish Bansal S/o Shri D.C. Bansal R/o 2 Chakrata Road Police Station Cantt,Dehradun District, Dehradun. ....……Respondents Shri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Sandhu. G.A. with Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Shri Dependra Patni, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C) 1973, the petitioner has 2 sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 3938 of 2010, State vs. Chandra Kiran & others, relating to offences punishable under section 420, 120B I.P.C, pending in court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, III, Dehradun. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the Principle of Law laid down in Moh. Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC (criminal) 929, and it is argued that there is no criminal liability as against the bona fide subsequent purchaser of the property. 4. The facts of the present case are that the property belonging to one Chandra Kiran was firstly transferred the land in question to one Col. S.S. Rawat, who transfer said land to Raj Bansal. Since, the mutation had not taken place, aforesaid Chandra Kiran, after allegedly conniving with petitioner Anil Kala sold the same property to him who in turn transferred the land at higher rates to some purchaser at Delhi. 5. In the above circumstances of the case at this stage without there being complete 3 evidence before this Court it is difficult to say whether the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser or not. Said question is a question of fact which can be better appreciated by the trial court after examining the witnesses. 6. For the reasons discussed above this court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. Therefore, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C, is dismissed with the observation that the petitioner may raise plea of being bona fide purchaser before the trial court. It is further observed that if the petitioner Anil Kala, surrenders before the court concerned his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. Dt:20.05.2010 parul (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)