IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 1056/2006 Noor Hassan …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Ors. …….Respondents With Criminal Misc. Application No. 937/2006 Aftab …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr.. …….Respondents July 28, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Rajendra Singh and Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocates for the petitioners, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for the complainant. Both these petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC) have been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 14.8.2006 passed by the Ist Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar Criminal Case No. 1405/2006, State v. Aftab & Anr. under Section 406, 420, 120-B IPC. Since both these petitions involve common facts and have been preferred against the same summoning order dated 14.8.2006, hence they are being decided by this common order. Facts, in brief, are that complainant Irshad lodged an FIR on 16.2.2006 with PS Ranipur with the averments that petitioners and other co-accused entered into an agreement with the complainant on 13.7.2005 for the sale of 24 bighas of land of Noor Alam. The agreement was notarized wherein rupees ten lakhs have been shown to be paid in advance towards the said agreement. But the petitioners and other co-accused neither paid rupees ten lakhs to the complainant nor they returned him the said land and thus the petitioners and the other co-accused cheated the complainant. It was also alleged that at that time Sameem Ahmad, Surendra Chauhan and Hariom were present at the place of occurrence. On the basis of this FIR, a case was registered against the petitioners and the other co-accused under Section 420, 406, 120-B IPC. After the investigation, the I.O. submitted a chargesheet against the petitioners and the other co-accused were absconding, on the basis of which learned Ist Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar has taken the cognizance of the offence against the petitioners vide order dated 14.8.2006. State has filed a counter affidavit, wherein averments made in the FIR have been supported. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in this argument due to the reason that from the perusal of the contents of FIR and statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and other evidence collected by the I.O., a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners under the aforesaid sections. The dispute involves factual question which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. If the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and the statements of witnesses recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners have rightly been summoned. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of Court. 2 The petitions lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the petitions are hereby dismissed. Interim orders dated 22.12.2006 and 23.11.2006 stand vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 28.7.2010 PRABODH 3