IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 127/2004 Smt. Krishna Devi & Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents August 2, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC) has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 6.10.2003 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1713/2003, State v. Smt. Krishna Devi & Other under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. Facts, in brief, are that respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR with PS Rishikesh on 5.1.2003 with the averments that the property in dispute was registered in his name by his maternal grandmother. But the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Krishan Devi (who is the daughter of his mother’s sister) and her husband i.e. petitioner no. 2 Sardar Kirpal Singh told his maternal grandfather that they have to build a new house and requested him to accommodate them and their belongings in his house till the completion of their new building. But lateron the petitioners got prepared a forged Will of his maternal grandmother and refused to vacate the premises. The complainant filed a civil suit at Dehradun, wherein the petitioners could not prove their case and on 19.4.2002, they gave in writing before the court that they had handed over the possession of the property in dispute to the complainant, but in the meantime they had already sold the said property to one Vinay Pant, who forcibly took over the possession of the said property on 26.4.2002 by breaking open the locks. Petitioners had assured the complainant that they would give the money in lieu of the said property but subsequently refused to give him either property or the money. Therefore, the respondent no. 2 lodged the FIR against the petitioners. On the basis of this FIR, a case was registered against the petitioners under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. After the investigation, the I.O. submitted a chargesheet against the petitioners, on the basis of which learned Special Judicial Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the offence against the petitioners vide order dated 6.10.2003. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in this argument due to the reason that from the perusal of the contents of FIR and statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and other evidence collected by the I.O., a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners under the aforesaid sections. The dispute involves factual question which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. If the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and the statements of witnesses recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners have rightly been summoned. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of Court. The petitions lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. 2 Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 23.3.2004 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 2.8.2010 PRABODH 3