IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 336 of 2010 Smt. Viresh w/o Shri Prem Chand R/o Village, Salempur Mahdood P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar. …………..Applicants. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, S.S,P. Haridwar, District Haridwar. 2. S.H.O. P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar. 3. Anil Kumar, S/o Ramesh Chandra R/o Village Atmalpur Bangla, P.S. Bahadarabad, District Haridwar. ………..Opposite Parties. Shri Lalit Tiwari, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State/Respondent No. 1. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. 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 order dated 16.07.2009, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on application No. 94 of 2009 moved under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 03.03.2010, passed by the 2 Revisional Court (Additional Sessions Judge/IV Fast Track Court, Haridwar) whereby criminal revision No. 227 of 2009 has been dismissed affirming the order passed by the Magistrate. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was got cheated as respondent No. 3 has sold the land which was already transferred in the name of Harsh Arora, and as such the courts below have erred in law in not directing the police to register the case against the respondent No. 3. 3. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the trial court found that the dispute between parties is purely of civil nature and it was not desirable to direct the police and register case in the matter. Revisional Court has also taken the same view. Referring to the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & anothers Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others, AIR 2008 SC251, it is rightly observed by the revisional court that in the matters of dispute of civil nature only, the court must ensure that the criminal 3 prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment to pressurise the accused. The revisional court has concurred the view taken by the Magistrate and further observed that from the sale deed in question it appears that possession of the land sold was delivered to the petitioner. The courts below have also taken note of the fact that name of Harsh Arora in whose favour earlier property is said to have been sold figured already in the revenue records and it cannot be said that the complainant/petitioner had no knowledge of his title. It is also observed by the Magistrate that the petitioner has purchased only a piece of land of large plot. 4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned order, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the courts below. Therefore, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is summarily dismissed. Dt:22.04.2010 parul (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 4