1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 540 of 2010 1. Sandeep Kumar Jindal S/O Shri K.C. Jindal R/O 235, Indra Nagar Colony Dehradun, Dist- Dehradun 2. Thakur Singla S/O Shri Raunqi Ram R/O 229, Indra Nagar Colony Dehradun, Dist- Dehradun ………………………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary home, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. Station House Officer, Police Station Rajpur, Dehradun District Dehradun 3. Shri Ritesh Tiwari S/O Shri R.K.Tiwari R/O 702, New Delhi house no. 27 Barakhamba road, New Delhi 110001 …………..Respondents. Shri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate present for the petitioners. Shri G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate, with Shri M.A.Khan, Brief Holder, present for the state Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2 (2) By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought quashing of the First Information Report dated 04.12.2009, lodged by respondent no.3 which is registered as crime no. 87 of 2009, relating to offences punishable under section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 I.P.C, at Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature. It is pleaded that it was the respondent no.3 who did not turn up to get executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent no.3. It is alleged in the First Information Report that the petitioners accepted Rs. 65 lakh as advance for executing sale deed in favour of the respondent no.3. Out of Rs. 65 lakh said to have been paid by the complainant, petitioners have admitted receiving only Rs. 25 lakhs as part consideration. Petitioners stated that the respondent no.3 did not turn up to get sale deed executed, but the respondent no.3 has alleged in the First Information Report that after receiving part consideration, the petitioners did not execute the sale deed even after being requested again and again. As such the respondent no.3 got cheated of the money parted with. 3 (4) In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of this case, this court is of the view that it is not a fit case for interference with the investigation. (5) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed summarily with the observation that if the petitioners, namely Sandeep Kumar Jindal and Thakur Singla surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay expeditiously. (Stay application 5441 of 2010 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.09.07.2010 NP