IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 630 of 2006 1. Mohan Lal Khera S/o Shri Sugreev Lal 2. Naveen Kumar Khera S/o Shri Sugreev Lal 3. Sugreev Lal S/o Shri Jethanand 4. Praveen Kumar Khera S/o Sugreev Lal All R/o Bhura Rani, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. Bhageerath Pal S/o Sri Mool Chand Pal R/o Friends Colony, Rudrapur, P.S. Rudrapur, District U.S. Nagar. 2. Judicial Magistrate Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for respondent No. 1 / complainant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 750 of 2006; Bhageerath Pal Vs. 2 Mohal Lal and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 363, 347, 504, 506 of I.P.C., pending in the court of II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed on their behalf. 3) Brief facts of the case are that a criminal complaint was filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 11.05.2006, stating that the petitioners, namely Sugreev Lal Khera, Naveen Kumar Khera, Praveen Kumar Khera and Mohan Lal Khera along with R.K. Aggarwal dragged the complainant in a car and abducted him to get executed sale deed in respect of plot of land situated in Khasra No. 51. It is further alleged that said incident took place on 12.04.2005, and thereafter on 15.04.2005, when the complainant was going to his house, the accused hurled abuses at him and insulted him. Alleging that when the police did not take action in the matter, a criminal complaint was filed. 4) The Magistrate, after recording the statement of complainant under Section 200, and that of the witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., summoned the 3 accused (present petitioners) vide impugned order dated 16.05.2006. Hence, this petition. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that earlier an application has been moved by the complainant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in which police reported that due to the property dispute between the parties the report is being lodged. It is pleaded before this Court that an injunction suit was filed on behalf of the petitioners in respect of property in dispute which has already been decreed from the civil court. It is further pleaded that false allegations have been made in the criminal complaint in question. 6) Whether, the allegations in the criminal complaint are true or not, cannot be examined by this Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Having gone through the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that disputed questions of fact have been raised by the petitioners in the petition to show that they are innocent. This Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot give an opinion on the disputed questions of fact on the basis of half baked evidence before it. It is for the trial court to examine the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioners, after recording the evidence, as to what extent the same are tenable. Undoubtedly, there appears to be a property dispute between the parties, but merely on that ground it cannot 4 be said that criminal complaint in question is simply an abuse of process of law. The accused / present petitioners can plead before the trial court their innocence and show to the trial court that the criminal complaint filed by respondent No. 1 is a motivated one. 7) With the above observation, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. (Stay Vacation Application No. 154 of 2007 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. April 21, 2010. H. Negi 5