IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Criminal Misc. Application No. 84 of 2004. 1- Basir Ahemd S/o Murad Baksh R/o 31/1, E.C. Road, Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun. 2- Smt. Ajijan W/o Murad Baksh R/o 31/1 E.C. Road, Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun .. Petitioners. Vs. 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Home Secretary, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2. Mahendra Singh Lamiyan S/o Late Harpal Singh R/o Morawala, P.S. Klemantown, District Dehradun .. Respondents. Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State. Sri Sachin Mehta, holding brief for Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Dated: 04-01-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition, U/s 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought the relief to quash the order dated 2-8-2003, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun, in criminal case No. 562 of 2003, Mahendra Singh Vs. Basir Ahmed and other, U/Ss 420, 406, 506, 323, 120-B I.P.C., as well as the entire proceedings of the above criminal case. 2- Brief facts, giving rise to this petition, as per the petition, are that the respondent No.2 preferred a complaint before the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Dehradun, U/Ss 420, 406, 506, 323, 120-B I.P.C. The learned Magistrate recorded the evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and found prima facie case against the accused/petitioners U/Ss 420, 406, 504, 506 and 120-B I.P.C. and vide impugned order dated 2.8.2003 took cognizance in the matter. Feeling aggrieved, the accused/petitioners have preferred this petition for quashing the above order as well as the entire proceedings of the criminal case. The ground taken by the petitioners are that the complaint filed by the respondents No.2 is the counter blast of the agreement dated 1-9-2001 executed between petitioner No.2 and the respondent No.2, in which the respondent No.2 received an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- and now he do not want to refund this amount. The dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and this false case has been filed only to dilute the matter and to create pressure against the petitioners. Therefore there has been abuse of process of the court. 3. The respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit, denying the allegations made in the petition and alleged that the petitioners have deliberately filed the incorrect copy of receipt-cum-agreement dated 11-9-2000, which does not bear the signature of witness and the last date fixed for execution, whereas the certified copy of said receipt-cum-agreement dated 11-9-2000 bears the signature of the witness and the last date of 11.1.2002. It has been alleged in the petition that the petitioners have not come with clean hand before this court and they want to mislead the Court by placing wrong facts and false document. Certified copy of the said receipt- cum-agreement dated 11-9-2000, has been filed by the respondent No.2 as Annexure- No.1 to the counter affidavit. 4- I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5- After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I do not find any abuse of process of Court in the present case. The ground taken by the petitioners in the petition are disputed question of facts and this Court while exercising the jurisdiction U/S 482 of the Cr.P.C. can not adjudge the disputed question of facts as this court has no material to assess the same, because the evidence is yet to be adduced before the trial court. 6- I have also perused the impugned summoning order dated 2-8-2003. The learned Magistrate has recorded the reasoning of his satisfaction in the above order after considering the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses recorded U/Ss 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the above order. I do not find any ground to interfere in the above order passed by the learned Magistrate. 7- In view of the above reasons and the facts and circumstances of the case the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8- Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 3-3-2004 stands vacated. 9- In case if the petitioners appear before the trial court and move bail application, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the bail application expeditiously without causing any unreasonable delay. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB