IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application No. 152 of 2009 1. Ratan Singh S/o Gabbar Singh 2. Jagjeet Singh S/o Rata Singh Both R/o Village Badhi Majra P.S. Sadar Pansra, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand Through Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. Satya Prakash Pathak S/o late Shyam Lal Pathak R/o 23 / 21, Sewak Ashram Road, P.S. Dalanwala, Dehradun. ...…………. Respondents Mr. K.S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for respondent No. 1. Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) 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 Case No. 1001 of 2008, State Vs. Ratan Singh and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., 2 police station Dalanwala, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 3) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 / complainant has alleged in the first information report that the accused petitioners, in connivance with Vimla Devi (co-accused), have cheated the complainant of his property by getting sale deed executed through Vimla Devi. It is alleged by the complainant that the property is owned by him. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are bonafide purchaser of the property in question, and it is a case of civil nature, and does not constitute any criminal offence. In this connection, reference is made to the case of Devendra and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another; (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 461. 5) I have gone through aforesaid case law. In said case it is observed that if there is no misrepresentation on the part of the accused there is no question of deception, as such, ingredients of Section 420 cannot be said to be made out. In the present case, there is allegation against the co-accused Vimla Devi that she misrepresented herself as owner of the property, while the property belonged to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant / respondent No. 2 drew attention of this Court to Annexure C.A. 1 to the counter affidavit, which 3 is a copy of the judgment dated 30th of January 2010, passed in Suit No. 387 of 2006, filed by co-accused Vimla Devi to get herself declared owner of the property, which she has sold to the petitioners. From the perusal of said judgment it appears that said suit has been dismissed. In said case the trial court has held that the Will dated 06.03.1953 relied by the plaintiff (Vimla Devi) was found to be a forged one. However, it is not clear whether said judgment has attained finality or not. 6) In the above circumstances, whether the petitioners are bonafide purchasers or not, is a clear question of fact which cannot be examined by this Court, in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the trial. 7) Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed, with the observations as above. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 16, 2010. H. Negi 4