IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 945 of 2006 Rajnish Kumar S/o Satyendra Singh R/o Mohalla Kayasthan (Shanti Kunj) Near Sergam Cinema, Chand Pur District Bijnor ………..…Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Rachna Chaudhary,W/o V.K. Chaudhary Proprietor Rent Computer Academy, Pravtiya Mohalla Barielly Road, Haldwani, Distict Nainital 2. State of Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) through S.H.O. Kotwali, Haldwani District Nainital, Uttaranchal 3. Investigating Officer, P.S. Haldwani, Nainital ....……Respondents Shri Shobhit Saharia, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri T.C. Agarwal, Additional G.A., present for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 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 the proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 2230 2 of 2006, State of Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) vs. Rajnish Kumar, relating to offences punishable under section 420, 406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.), pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani. 3. Brief facts, of the case are that, respondent no. 1 Smt. Rachna Chaudhary lodged a first information report (For short FIR) which was registered as crime no. 3644 of 2006, relating to offences punishable under section 406, 420 IPC, against the petitioner Rajnish alleging that she entered into contract with the petitioner in the year 2004, for getting work done of data processing conversion for an amount of ` 1,81,50,000/- ( Rupees one crore eighty one lakh and fifty thousand), and the complainant was to get ` 16,50,000/- ( Rupees sixteen lakh and fifty thousand) as fee for the work. She has further alleged that she made necessary payments through cheques, and ` 1,00,000/- ( Rupees one lakh) in cash and started doing the work. However, she did not receive her payments through the petitioner. When she contacted him, the petitioner kept on making promises, and no payment was made to the complainant. Alleging that cheating has been committed with the 3 complainant, the FIR was lodged. It appears, after investigation, charge sheet Ex. A5 was filed against the petitioner in the trial court on which said court took the cognizance, and summoned the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute between the complainant and the petitioner was civil in nature. It is further pleaded that offences alleged against the petitioner are not made out. 4. However, on going through the affidavit, and counter affidavit on record, this Court finds that the matter relates to disputed questions of fact not only as to the payment, but also to the intention on the part of the petitioner. It is also not clear as to whether the agreement as pleaded, was entered between the parties or not. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be determined by this Court in its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C, to come to the conclusion whether the ingredients of the offences are made out or not. It is not proper for the court to enter into the factual disputes , and to find out as to whether actually cheating was done or not. It is for the trial court to see, after recording the evidence, as to whether the petitioner is innocent or not. 4 5. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. Accordingly, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner Rajnish Kumar appears before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard, and disposed of without unreasonable delay. Registry is direct to inform the court concerned. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 06.12.2010