IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.278 OF 2007 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Ved Prakash Sharma …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: October 4, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mr. H.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/applicant has sought quashing of the summoning order and the consequent proceedings of the complaint case no.966 of 2003, Ishwar Dayal v. Rajendra, relating to offences punishable under Sections 467, 469, 470, 471, 193, 109, 114, 218 and 219 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC). Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Ishwar Dayal filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on 30.8.1996 alleging therein that the complainant is Owner/Manager of Barodawali Dharamshala and pays the house tax and water tax to Nagar Palika Parishad. It is further alleged that the officials of Nagar Palika Parishad entered the name of co-accused Rajendra Singh in the capacity of tenant in one of the room of the said Dharamshala in order to make him benefited by fraudulent means in the tax assessment record of the Nagar Palika Parishad. With the same averments, the present complaint was filed by respondent no.2 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. In support of the 2 complaint, the complainant got himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and made a request before the trial court that the matter be referred to police u/s 202 Cr.P.C. in order to find out the names of the persons responsible for the said wrong entries. Vide order dated 17.1.1997, the learned Magistrate send the matter to concerned police station for investigation u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the matter was proceeded in the trial court u/s 210 Cr.P.C and on 15.1.2004 learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued bailable warrant against one Prahalad Singh Rawat, Mahadev Singh, Bishan Lal and Moh. Gohar Hayat. Feeling aggrieved with the said order dated 15.1.2004, the above-named persons preferred a revision in the court of Sessions, which was allowed by the revisional court vide order dated 7.7.2004 and the summoning order dated 15.1.2004 was set aside and trial court was directed to find out the names of the persons who were holding the post of Executive Officer, Tax Superintendent, Tax Inspector and clerk of the concerned department in Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar at the relevant time of commission of alleged forgery and may then take cognizance against them. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, through his letter dated 17.9.2004 requisitioned the name of the persons as directed by the revisional court. After receiving the said information from Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar, learned Magistrate, vide order dated 4.10.2004, summoned the applicant Ved Prakash Sharma and other accused persons and subsequently vide order dated 11.4.2005 he ordered to frame charges against the applicant u/Ss 466, 471 and 120-B of IPC after recording the statement of complainant under Section 244 Cr.P.C. Against the said order dated 11.4.2005, the applicant preferred a revision in the court of Sessions. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide his order dated 10.4.2007, dismissed the revision and upheld the order dated 11.4.2005 with the observation that the applicant has an opportunity to cross 3 examine the witness u/s 246 Cr.P.C. and to produce his defence. Hence, this petition. From the perusal of the contents of the complaint and the evidence produced by the complainant u/s 244 Cr.P.C. and report received from Nagar Palika Parishad showing the involvement of the applicant in the present crime prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections is made out against the applicant. From the above discussions, it reveals that the disputed questions of facts are involved in the instance case. The factual dispute cannot be decided without recording the evidence of the parties that can only be decided by the trial court. Further, the applicant has an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses u/s 246 Cr.P.C. and to produce his defence. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The C482 application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 9.5.2007 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 4.10.2010 RG