IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.664 of 2008 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Smt. Dorris Praveen Singh …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: October 26, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mr. Siddhartha Sah and Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocates for the applicants, Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State and Mr. R.S. Sammal, Advocate 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 applicant has sought quashing of charge sheet filed in Case Crime No.5101/2007 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) as well as the summoning order dated 27.2.2008 passed by Addl. C.J.M., Haldwani in Criminal Case No.1165/2008, State v. Smt. Dorris Praveen Singh. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 lodged an FIR against the applicant alleging that the father of the complainant had Bhumidari property and one residential house was situated on it. The father of complainant expired in the year 1980 leaving behind three sons, namely, Praveen Chandra Singh, Jagdish Chandra and Satish Chandra (the complainant herein) and three daughters. The successors of the property left by late Sri Prem Singh were the complainant and his elder brother Praveen Chandra Singh because the middle brother Jagdish 2 Chandra Singh went to America in 1956 and became its citizen. In the records of Nagar Palika Haldwani Kathgodam till 1993 the name of Sri Prem Singh was recorded. On 6.11.1992, Praveen Chandra Singh, the elder brother of the complainant expired and thereafter the complainant and the applicant became the successors of Prem Kutir building and the entire land, but the applicant with intention of gaining benefit and recording the share and rights of the complainant over building in her name and for causing loss to the complainant filed an affidavit stating her to be the only successor of late Dr. P.C. Singh (Prem Singh) and got the Prem Kutir building recorded in her name in the records of the Nagar Palika Haldwani Kathgodam. In this manner the applicant deliberately and knowingly that the actual successors of Prem Kutir building are the complainant and the applicant, with intention to grab the share and right of the complainant and for causing loss to the complainant, presented a false affidavit and has committed a criminal act by getting the said building recorded in her name in the records of Nagar Palika. It is further alleged that legally it was the responsibility of the applicant for keeping the rights of all successors secured as the applicant was the eldest family member but the applicant by not discharging her responsibility and by getting Prem Kutir recorded in her name by presenting wrong facts has committed an offence. With the same averments, the present FIR was lodged by respondent no.2 against the applicant. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated and on completion, the charge sheet was submitted. Consequent to submission of charge sheet, learned Addl. CJM, Haldwani, vide order dated 27.2.2008 summoned the applicant and subsequently the impugned criminal proceedings were initiated against her. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has preferred the present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 3 Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the said case and the allegations levelled against her are false and frivolous. Contrary to this, learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that during the course of investigation the I.O. recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and collected credible evidence against the applicant and thereafter the charge sheet was filed against the applicant by the I.O. Learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant also refuted the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and argued that, with the intention of cheating, the present applicant filed a false affidavit in the office of Executive Officer Nagar Palika Haldwani Kathgodam District Nainital stating therein that she is the only successors of late Prem Singh, concealing the fact that late Prem Singh was having three sons namely Jagdish Chandra Singh, Praveen Chandra Singh and Satish Chandra Singh (complainant). He further argued that a suit filed by the applicant in the year 2001 for declaring her Bhumidar of the disputed property has been dismissed by the order dated 7.6.2010 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Class, Haldwani, District Nainital and an appeal preferred by the applicant against that order dated 7.6.2010 has also been dismissed by Commissioner Kumaon Region Nainital vide order dated 8.9.2010. From the above discussions, it reveals that 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. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court which will 4 decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. However, from a perusal of the contents of the first information report and the statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and other evidence collected by I.O. during the course of investigation, prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections Act is made out against the applicant. 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 14.11.2008 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 26.10.2010 RG