IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL. (1) Criminal Misc. Application No. 294 of 2003 Yashveer Singh S/o Shesh Raj R/o Manglore, District Haridwar --Petitioner. Versus 1- State of Uttaranchal, through Home Secretary, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2- Jai Bhagwan Sharma, R/o 61- Milap Nagar, Roorkee, District Haridwar --- Respondents. Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Anuj Kumar Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 Sri Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State. (2) Criminal Misc. Application No. 323 of 2003 Vijay Mohan @ Man Mohan S/o Buydheshwar Prasad Gupta, R/o Bhadarabad, P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar --Petitioner Versus 1- State of Uttaranchal, through Home Secretary, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2- Jai Bhagwan Sharma, R/o 61- Milap Nagar, Roorkee, District Haridwar --- Respondents. Sri Nagesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Anuj Kumar Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 Sri Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State. (3) Criminal Misc. Application No. 346 of 2003 Jeeshan Ali S/o Khurshid Ali, R/o Kasba P.S. Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar --Petitioner. Versus 1- State of Uttaranchal, through Home Secretary, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2- Jai Bhagwan Sharma, R/o 61- Milap Nagar, Roorkee, District Haridwar --- Respondents. Sri Sidharth Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Anuj Kumar Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 Sri Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State. (4) Criminal Misc. Application No. 351 of 2003 Harpal Goswami S/o Nattu Giri R/o Highway Hotel Haridwar Road Roorkee District Haridwar --Petitioner. Versus 1- State of Uttaranchal, through S.S.P. Haridwar. 2- Station House Officer, P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3- Jai Bhagwan Sharma, R/o 61- Milap Nagar, Roorkee, District Haridwar --- Respondents. Sri Shobit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Anuj Kumar Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3 Sri Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State. (5) Criminal Misc. Application No. 10 of 2004 Anand Gupta S/o Ssuraj Bali R/o Mohalla Jatan Ki Madya Near Kisan Dharma Kanta, P.S. Pilakua, District Haridwar --Petitioner. Versus 1- State of Uttaranchal 2- A.C.J.M. Roorkee. 3- Jai Bhagwan Sharma, R/o 61- Milap Nagar, Roorkee, District Haridwar --- Respondents. Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Anuj Kumar Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 Sri Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State. Dated: January 03, 2008. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. All the above petitions, arise out of the same criminal case, therefore, these are being decided by this common judgment. 2- The petitioners by way of the above petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., have sought the relief for quashing the charge sheet submitted in case crime No. 228/2003 as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case No. 2492/2003, State Vs. Harpal Goshwami and others, U/Ss 420, 506, 120-B and 216 I.P.C. pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3- Brief facts, giving rise to these petitions, as per the averments made in the petitions, are that the respondent No.2 sent a complaint against petitioners Harpal Goswami and one Satish Nagar to the then Chief Minister, State of Uttarakhand with the allegation that Mr. Harpal Goswami has cheated him and gang of eight other persons is also involved in it. In these eight persons names of petitioners Yashveer Singh, Jeeshan Ali were noted in the F.I.R. whereas the names of other petitioners came to light during investigation by the police. The police investigated the case and after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioners and two other accused persons for the offences U/Ss 420, 506, 120-B, 216 I.P.C. Thereafter the learned Magistrate registered the criminal case No. 2492/2003 and issued summons against the petitioners/accused to face trial under the aforesaid offences. 4- The petitioners have preferred the petitions to quash the charge sheet as well as the proceedings of the criminal case on the ground that the controversy involved in the matter relates to civil dispute. No criminal offence of cheating, criminal intimidation, criminal conspiracy etc have been committed and the petitioners have been implicated in a false case. The police has submitted charge sheet against all the accused/petitioners without there being any prima facie evidence against them, therefore the charge sheet as well as the entire proceedings of the criminal case are liable to be quashed as there has been abuse of process of the court in the instant case. 5- The respondent No.2 has filed counter affidavits in the above petitions. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 294/2003, in the counter affidavit it has been alleged that the applicant Yashveer Singh was the attorney of one Abinash Chandra. On the basis of power of attorney he had sold the portion of land to one Rajesh Kumar vide sale deed dated 3.1.2001 and the same land was also sold by the applicant to Sachin Kumar Satija vide sale deed dated 7.3.2001. 6- In Criminal Misc. Application No. 323/2003 the respondent No.2 has made the allegation against the applicant Man Mohan that he was introduced as Munim of accused Harpal Goswami and attesting witness in the sale deed dated 7-3-2001 and he connived with co-accused for smooth execution of the sale deed. 7- In criminal Misc. Application No. 346/2003, the respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit and made allegations against the petitioner Jeeshan Ali that he is an active member of well organized Bhu Mafia Gang operating at Roorkee headed by accused Harpal Goswami. It is alleged that Sachin Satija appointed co- accused Subhash Nagar and the petitioner Jeeshan Ali power of attorney for some land and had to cancel the power of attorney. The police found active involvement of this petitioner in the commission of crime along with other co-accused. 8- In Criminal Misc. Application No. 351/2003 counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and it has been alleged that the police had made thorough investigation in the case and involvement of accused/applicant Harpal Goswami has been found in the commission of crime and hence charge sheet was submitted against him. 9- In Criminal Misc. Application No. 10/2004 the respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit and alleged that during the course of investigation it has been clearly established that the petitioner is an active member of the gang. Witness Satish Kumar had told to the I.O. about the criminal conspiracy hatched by the petitioners for cheating and deceiving the people for money, at the hotel of petitioner /accused Harpal Goswami. 10- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11- After having considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and having gone through the material on record, I find no abuse of process of Court in the instant case. In the F.I.R. specific allegations have been made against the petitioners about the cheating, hatching criminal conspiracy etc. The points involved in these writ petition are disputed question of fact. This court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot embark upon an enquiry and adjudge the same as the evidence is yet to be adduced by the parties during the trial. The petitioners will have an opportunity to defend their case before the trial court. In the F.I.R. specific allegations have been made against all the accused/applicants that they all are the members of a gang headed by applicant Harpal Goswami and all of them are engaged in cheating by conspiring each other in sale transaction of the land, thereby achieving illegal gain. At this stage, this Court is not in a position to scrutinize the specific role of the individual as the evidence is yet to come. The police had investigated the matter thoroughly and after finding involvement of all the applicants in the commission of crime has submitted charge sheet against all the applicants/accused. The learned Magistrate also has gone through the case diary and material collected during the investigation while issuing summons against the accused/applicants to face the trial. I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the submission of charge sheet by the police and issuing summons by the learned Magistrate. 12- The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in 1992 CR.L.J. 527, has observed that “High Court is not justified in going into the disputed question of fact by appreciating the documents and evidence produced before it by treating them as evidence to hold the accused person as innocent because it will amount to pre-trial of a criminal case under inherent powers of the Court.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the same judgment has also observed that – “High Court should not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. The High Court may only examine whether the F.I.R. or the complaint or the material collected by prosecution taken on their face value and accepted in entirety, prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused person.” 13- The Hon’ble Apex Court in an another case State of Bihar Vs. Raj Narain, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1308, has observed that- “High Court prejudging police papers and having found discrepancies etc in them and quashing a pending criminal case would be improper.” 14- In view of the above observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the reasons recorded by me, the petitions lack merit and iare liable to be dismissed. 15- Accordingly, all the petitions are dismissed. The interim orders passed in these petitions stand vacated. 16- Let copy of this order be placed in each file of the above petitions. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB