IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 192 of 2011 (Old No. 4456 of 1996) Om Prakash S/o Jhandu Singh R/o Village Khusalipur Khurd, Post Khusalipur Kala, D istrict Saharanpur (U.P.). ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State 2. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar. 3. Ramesh Chandra Sharma S/o Sri Vidyadhar Sharma R/o Railway Road, Ganeshpur, Gangnahar, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. T.C. Agarwal, Addl. Govt. Advocate, present for the State. Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, Advocate, present for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 07.08.1996, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1377 of 1993. 3) It is pertinent to mention here that the present petition was filed by the petitioner before the Allahabad High Court way back in the year 1996, from where the same is received by this court in the year 2011, under Section 35 of the U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000, for its disposal. 4) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 Ramesh Chandra Sharma filed a criminal complaint before the trial court, relating to offences punishable under Section 167, 218, 465 of I.P.C., against petitioner Om Prakash and another co-accused Babu Ram. It is pleaded by the complainant that he was a recorded tenure holder (Bhumidhar) of the land bearing Khasra No. 330, situated in Village Lakeshari, within the limits of Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, since 1984. It is alleged that the petitioner, who was a Lekhpal, in connivance with co-accused issued forged copies of Khasra and Khatauni, after making forged entry in the revenue records. The trial court summoned the accused, after recording the statements of complainant under Section 200, and that of the witness under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The impugned order dated 07.08.1996, is passed after summoning the accused, and after recording evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C., whereby it was directed that the charge be framed against the petitioner and the co-accused. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner acted in pursuance to an interim order passed by senior revenue official to him. 6) This is a factual plea of innocence which can be examined by the trial court at the time of the trial, as the learned counsel for the complainant states that said fact is not admitted to the complainant that any interim order was given to the petitioner to make any forged entry in the year the entry in question was made. Reliance was also placed on behalf of respondent No. 2 / complainant to the case of Sita Ram Vs. State, reported in AIR 1968 Allahabad 207, stating that the petitioner is not a public servant for the purposes of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Otherwise also, said plea is not taken by the petitioner. 7) In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Interim order dated 28.10.1996, passed by Allahabad High Court, stands hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. July 13, 2011. H. Negi