IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Stay Vacation Application No. 1022 of 2010 In CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 514 of 2010 Sri Rakesh Thapa, Son of Late Sri Veer Singh Thapa, R/o 26, Garhi Cantt, Police station Cantt, District Dehradun, office at Account Section Indian Military Academy, Prem Nagar, Police Station Cantt, Dehradun, District Dehradun ………………............Petitioner Versus Sri Pratap Singh Chauhan Son of Sri V. S. Chauhan R/o Village & Post Office Jhajhra, District Dehradun presently R/o 15/1, Chandar Nagar, Police Station Kotwali, District Dehradun ………….........Respondent Shri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, present for the petitioner Shri I.P.Kohli, Advocate, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2 (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 5316 of 2009 Pratap Singh vs. Rakesh Thapa, relating to offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun. (3) Brief facts of the case are that, an agreement is said to have entered on 05.02.2006, between the respondent, and the petitioner that the respondent shall sell the land of Khasra No. 859 situated in Hope Town Pargana Pachwadun, District Dehradun, to the petitioner on payment of consideration at the rate of ` 9,50,000/- per beegha. A cheque no. 886879 dated 12.04.2009, said to have been issued by the petitioner for payment of amount of ` 9,00,000/- from HDFC Bank, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. However, said cheque was got dishonoured on 16.04.2009, with the endorsement 'funds in sufficient'. Thereafter, the respondent appears to have served a notice through his counsel on the 3 petitioner, and filed criminal complaint. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the agreement was entered between the parties, but the respondent did not execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, as such, he was not entitled to payment of any consideration. In reply to this learned counsel for the respondent stated that sale deeds were executed in favour of the various persons nominated by the petitioner on his instruction. (5) The above controversy is factual in nature which can not be examined of this court in its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is desirable that such pleas be examined by the trial court if raised before it, after recording the evidence in the case. (6) Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed with the observation that petitioner may raise the pleas of his defences before the trial court. Interim order 4 dated 09.06.2010, stands vacated. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.09.08.2011 N.P