IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 475 of 2010 Manoj Jain ………..Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …..Respondents. Present: Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent no.2. Date of Decision: 13.09.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J(Oral) Heard Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent no.2. This criminal misc. application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant against the summoning order dated 26.03.2010 and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3149/2010 State Vs. Manoj Jain, under Section 420/406/504/506 IPC pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st, Dehradun. Primarily, the facts of the case are that there was an agreement between the present applicant and respondent no.2 for sale of a property i.e. land. The agreement of sale was not registered. Since the applicant refused to have a sale deed executed, an FIR was filed against him and subsequently a chargesheet was also filed before the court after investigation and the court below took cognizance under Section 420, 406, 504, 506 of IPC and issued summoning order dated 26.03.2010 against the applicant. It is this summoning order, which has been challenged by the applicant before this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant Ms. Prabha Naithani states that subsequent to filing of FIR a compromise has taken place between the parties and nothing further survives in the matter. Copy of compromise is available on record as Annexure No.13 to the application. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has denied the fact of compromise and says that no compromise has taken place between the parties and the dispute between the parties still subsists. Moreover, whatever have been stated before this Court are a matter to be adjudicated only during trial. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has also relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in S. P. Gupta Vs. Ashutosh Gupta reported in (2010) 6 SCC 562 wherein on similar set of facts when an agreement of sale was executed between two parties on misrepresentation and fraud whether the fact that misrepresentation has been committed has been said to be only a matter to be adjudicated in a trial court and cannot be determined by the High Court in 482 proceedings. The fact of the matter is that the compromise as alleged by the applicant has been denied by respondent no.2. Admittedly, prima facie case is made out against the applicant under Section 420, 406, 504, 506 of IPC. This Court finds no good ground for interfering in the matter. Present C-482 application is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, is also vacated. No order as to costs. Learned counsel for the applicant at this stage prays that direction be given to the Magistrate concerned to consider and dispose of the bail application of the applicant on the same day when it is filed before him. Normally this Court does not direct any subordinate court to decide the bail application on the same day, as that would be interfering with the judicial discretion of the Court hearing the bail application in view of the direction given by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Smt. Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P. [2004 (57) ALR 390], and based on the peculiar facts of the present case, it is directed that in case the applicant move bail application and present himself in the Court concerned, the learned Magistrate will consider and dispose of such a bail application on the same day by looking into the entire aspect of the matter. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 13.09.2010 Kuldeep