IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No.53 of 2008 Sandeep Sahni S/o Shri K.R. Sahni R/o Summer House Building Kulri, Mussoorie District Dehradun ……..…Applicant Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Suresh Kumar Puri S/o Late Shri H.S. Puri R/o 1, Haridwar Road Police Station Kotwali, Dehradun .....……Respondents Shri L.K. Tiwari, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State. Shri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 2/complainant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C) the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 2 2704 of 2007, State vs. Karan Singh Chauhan & others, relating to offences punishable under section 467, 468, 429, 466, 120B I.P.C., pending in the court of Additional Chief Judical Magistrate, Dehradun. 3. Brief facts of the case are that first information report was lodged against the petitioner and four other accused by respondent no. 2 Suresh Kumar Puri, that a forged sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner by conspiring with each other, in respect of property known as ‘Radha Bhawan’ in Mussoorie. It is alleged in the first information report that on the back date, the stamp were purchased, and forged signatures were made in the ‘will’ on the basis of which the share of Suresh Kumar Puri was transferred by co- accused Karan Singh Chauhan, in favour of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is bona-fide purchaser. He further pleaded that as against the petitioner no offence is made out. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant and the respondent no. 2 drew the 3 attention of this Court pointing out that the petition moved under section 482 of Cr.P.C., by other accused namely R.S. Panwar, Karan Singh Chauhan and Ranbir Singh have already been dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 08.08.2008 and 13.05.2010. Referring to the paragraph of the counter affidavit it is pleaded on behalf of the respondent no. 2 that the petitioner was also involved in the crime. 6. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record and the copies of the forensic laboratory, Agra, this Court is of the view that the points raised by the petitioner before this Court are disputed questions of fact which require recording of evidence before coming to the conclusion whether the petitioner has any connivance with the other accused or not. It is not desirable on the part of this Court to form any opinion on the basis of the incomplete evidence. 7. For the reasons as discussed above, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner Sandeep Sahni surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application 4 shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J) Dt: 09.06.2010 Parul