2025:UHC:731 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 866 of 2024 11th February, 2025 Pankaj Kamboj ….Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. with Ms. Shweta B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This application has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.763 of 2024, State Vs. Pankaj Kamboj, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, pertaining to the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. 2. Facts of the case are that an FIR No.0305 of 2023 was filed before the Police Station Kotwali, District Dehradun stating therein the allegations relating to the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. On that FIR, the matter was investigated and a charge sheet under Sections 504 and 506 IPC was submitted against the applicant in the court whereupon the cognizance was taken and the applicant was summoned to face the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that it is a matter relating to land dispute; no offence alleged against the petitioner is made out, even respondent no.3 always threaten the petitioner that he would falsely implicate him. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel argued that the court has taken cognizance against the applicant on the basis of documentary evidence available before it as well as the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 5. This Court is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry as to whether the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner are actually made out or not, as it is the duty required to be performed by the 2025:UHC:731 2 trial court after due consideration of the evidence produced before it. Moreover this is not a case where if the case of prosecution is taken to be true, no case is made out against the applicant. There is no flaw even in the summoning order as prima facie a case is made out against the applicant. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, C482 application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7. The applicant is directed to face the trial and lead the evidence and at the same time, trial court is directed to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 11.02.2025 SK