IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No.1017 of 2009 Anand Dubey …………Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………….Respondents Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, AGA for the respondent no.1 & 2. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no.3 Dated: November 25, 2009 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (By the Court) Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra report in (2009) 2 SCC 370 and while referring para no.10 of the said judgment, Sri Ramji Srivastava argued that if civil dispute given colour of Criminal offence the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. I have carefully examined the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court (Supra). If a person is guilty of forging a document with intent to cheat then it can not be said that it is a pure civil dispute. If a document is forged prior to institution the suit or if any benefit is taken out of the forged document then criminal prosecution is not barred. The Scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India or scope of Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. While exercising powers in either of the provisions, Court is not supposed to enter into the question of fact or appreciation of evidence. The only thing which is required to be seen by the Court is as to whether contents of the First Information Report make out any prima facie case or not. I have carefully perused the FIR in question. As per the FIR, when informant complainant went to his property, he found accused are raising construction thereon. On his asking the accused and others handed over him a copy of one agreement on which signature of the informant complainant was manipulated/ forged. It is also alleged in the FIR that when informant met with the accused person on 12.11.2009 they all assaulted him and used abusive language and gave life threat. From the perusal of the contents of the FIR, prima facie offence mentioned therein is made out. However, this is a matter of investigation. No interference is called for. This petition is dismissed accordingly. (Alok Singh, J.) 25.11.2009 JKJ