IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No.303 of 2004 1. Imran, S/o Nathu 2. Zubair, S/o Nisar 3. Gulsher S/o Gulfam 4. Gulfam, S/o Zameel 5. Abbas, S/o Zameel All R/o Village Sarkhari Taharpur Police Station Gangnehar, Roorkee District Haridwar ………..…Applicants. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal/Uttarakhand 2. Wazid Ali, S/o Ziaaual Haq R/o Village Sarkhari Taharpur Police Station Gangnehar, Roorkee District Haridwar ....……Respondents. Shri Rajendra Singh, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Shri B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the respondent no. 1/State. Shri Manish Arora, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 2/complainant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973(for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 198 of 2004, Wajid Ali vs. Imran & others, relating to offences punishable under section 379/427 I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. The petitioners have further challenged the order dated 15.06.2004, passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar, whereby said court has summarily dismissed the revision against the summoning order passed by the trial court in the aforesaid complaint case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that it is alleged in the criminal complaint filed by respondent no. 2 that vide order dated 10.10.2003, the complainant got possession of some portion of Khasra No. 265 which was included in Khasra No. 271 in the consolidation proceedings. It is further pleaded by the complainant that he had sown the crop of BARSEEM (fodder for 3 the cattle). It is further alleged that on 22.01.2004, in absence of the complainant, the petitioners committed theft of the crops sown by the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that vide order dated 10.10.2003, infact possession of the land in dispute was not delivered to the complainant, and only measurements were made. Apart from this, it is pleaded that later, on application of the petitioners, the order was recalled. As such, it is contended that the trial court has erred in law in summoning the accused on the allegation that they had taken crops sown by the complainant. 5. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this court finds that it involves disputed questions of fact as to whether the complainant was actually given possession 4 of the land or not, and whether the complainant had sown crop of BARSEEM or not. The disputed questions of fact cannot be decided by this Court in its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before court concerned their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. Dt. 15.06.2010 Parul (Prafulla C.Pant,J)