IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 901 of 2009 Rizwan S/o Yakoob R/o Makka Bans, P.S. Gagalhedi District Saharanpur U.P. ………Petitioner . Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. Madan Singh S/o Ham Chand Yadav R/o Village Mulani, P.S. Fatehpur District Saharanpur. …………….Respondents. Shri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for respondent No. 1. Shri Parikshit Saini, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of proceedings of the criminal case no.956 of 2009 State Vs. Gulsher & another relating to offences punishable under Sections 467,419,420,468,471 & 120-B I.P.C. pending in the Court of Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. which was registered as criminal case no.435 of 2008 relating to offences punishable under Sections 420,468, 471 I.P.C. against accused Gulsher and Rizwan (present petitioner), Abdul Rahim and Naresh. After investigation the police submitted the chargesheet against accused Gulsher and Rizwan (present petitioner) in respect of offences punishable under sections 419,420,468,471 & 120-B I.P.C. pending in the Court of Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar. Allegations against accused Gulsher & accused Rizwan (present petitioner) are that they made an attempt to get released a vehicle registration No.DAJ – 5060 which was owned by Rama Singh, by impersonation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in respect of such an offence, the cognizance could have been taken only on complaint by the Magistrate and not by lodging first information report by respondent no.2 Madan Singh. On other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that the respondent/complainant is a victim of the incident in which vehicle is involved. It is further stated on behalf of respondent no.2/complainant that he is presently affected by the release of the vehicle in favour of the accused by impersonating the real owner Rama Singh. It is contended on behalf of respondent that after the vehicle, was allotted to be released in the manner stated above, an application was moved under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the complainant on which objections were also filed by Rizwan (Present petitioner) and only thereafter the Magistrate directed the police to register the case. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this court is of the view, whether petitioner has committed any forgery and cheating or not, is the matter to be examined by trial court after recording the evidence. It is not the jurisdiction of this Court to look into such disputed question of fact in the proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. As far as the point whether the complaint should have been made under section 340 Cr.P.C. read with section 195 of Cr.P.C., this point can also be raised by the petitioner before the trial court. 6. For the reasons as discussed above, this court is of the view that this not a fit a case to interfere with trial. 7. Therefore, petition is dismissed summarily with the observation that if petitioner surrenders before the court concerned and moves application for bail, the same shall be heard & disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:11.03.2010 JKJ