2025:UHC:5782 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482/1517/2016 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Faizan Ali proxy counsel for Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned charge-sheet and the summoning/cognizance order dated 07.12.2015 passed in Criminal Case No. 2318 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, and 506 I.P.C., pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. 4. Brief facts of the case are that Briefly stated, the case arises out of an FIR lodged by respondent no.2, alleging that an agreement was executed between the applicant and respondent no.2 concerning a piece of land situated in District Haridwar. It is alleged that respondent no.2 paid an amount of ₹4 lakhs to the applicant, but despite the expiry of the agreed period, no sale deed was executed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He would further submit that the land in question originally belonged to one Mam Chand, who 2025:UHC:5782 requested the applicant to find a prospective buyer and orally authorized him to enter into an agreement regarding the said land. The applicant executed the agreement with respondent no.2/complainant, making it clear that the land belonged to Mam Chand and the sale deed would be executed only upon completion of proceedings under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. However, Mam Chand did not cooperate in the said proceedings, rendering the agreement ineffective. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the dispute between the applicant and respondent no.2 is purely civil in nature and has been given a criminal colour. The Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet without conducting a fair and impartial investigation. It is also contended that the learned trial court passed the summoning order in a cursory manner without proper application of mind, therefore, the entire criminal proceedings is unsustainable in the eyes of law and same is liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the application and would submit that the grounds taken in the present C-482 application is a matter of evidence which can be considered only at the time of trial, only on the basis of evidence led by the parties and cannot be considered by this Court in a proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any relief at this stage. 8. Having considered the submissions of learned 2025:UHC:5782 counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the contentions raised by the applicant are, prima facie, his defence and is matter of evidence, which can only be appreciated in the trial and should not be looked into by this Court while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 9. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, with caution and only to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no merit in the present application. 10. Accordingly, the C-482 application is dismissed. 11. However, it is made clear that the trial court shall decide the case, in accordance with law, on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations made in this order. 12. No order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 04.07.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:5782