IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 905/2010 Lt. Col. Yogender Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents September 27, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. BS Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. MA Khan, Brief Holder for the State. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 15.6.2010 as well as the entire proceedings of criminal proceedings of Case No. 5902/2010, Rajendra Singh v. Lt. Col. Yogender Kumar under Section 420 IPC pending in the Court of ACJM III, Dehradun. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent no. 2 filed a criminal complaint on 14.5.2010 against the petitioner alleging that he made the payment of rupees eleven lakhs to the petitioner in the year 2006 in connection of the purchase of land in dispute as part payment of agreed sale consideration of rupees sixteen lakhs and fifty thousand in the presence of witnesses. Out of rupees eleven lakhs, the complainant paid six lakhs cash on 2.9.2006 in the presence of AK Dimri and Mr. Ajay Uniyal and receipt thereof was also issued by the petitioner. Thereafter rupees five lakhs were paid to the petitioner vide bank draft dated 14.11.2006. But the petitioner did not execute the sale deed. Therefore, the respondent no. 2 gave a legal notice to the petitioner but the petitioner neither executed the sale deed nor returned the money to the respondent no. 2. Therefore, respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the Magistrate. Learned trial court after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Section 420 IPC is made out against the 2 petitioner and accordingly summoned him vide impugned order dated 15.6.2010. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner due to the reasons that averments made in the complaint are corroborated by the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC and other documentary evidence produced by the complainant. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners; perusal of complaint, summoning order dated 15.6.2010, statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 CrPC and other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case under the aforesaid Sections is made out against the petitioner. Even otherwise, 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 and the evidence oral as well as documentary produced against the accused and the statements of witnesses are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been summoned by the trial court. 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 petition is dismissed being devoid of merit is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 27.9.2010 PRABODH 3