2025:UHC:1592 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528 No.292 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Akshay Latwal, Brief Holder and Mr. Devender Singh, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1. 2. In this criminal misc. application under Section 528 B.N.S.S., applicant has sought quashing of summoning/ cognizance order dated 27.10.2021 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1597 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Haridwar. 3. It transpires that an F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and one other person with the contention that applicant on the pretext of getting executed a sale deed of a piece of land, grabbed huge sum from the complainant and thereafter did not turn up. When complainant asked them to do needful in the matter, they threatened him of dire consequences. Upon investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant for offences punishable under Section 420, 406 & 506 I.P.C. Learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the applicant vide order dated 27.10.2021. Thus, feeling aggrieved, applicant has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and vexatious and has been lodged with a view to wreak 2025:UHC:1592 vengeance against the applicant. He further contends that applicant is innocent, therefore, summoning order and entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that evidence collected during investigation was found to be sufficient to prosecute the applicant and whether applicant is guilty or not can be decided only during trial after leading evidence. He submits that there is no scope for interference in the matter, in view of parameters laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, as reiterated in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918. 6. This Court finds substance in the submission raised by learned State Counsel. Whether applicant is guilty or not cannot be decided in this criminal misc. application. Thus, there is no scope for interference. 7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application is dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 07.03.2025 Arpan 2025:UHC:1592