HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.25 of 2020 Virendra Pundir ………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ………Respondents Mr. Tilak Ram, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. Ms. Shazia Parveen, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of this C482 application, the applicant has prayed for quashing/ setting aside cognizance order as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.5951 of 2019, State vs. Virendra Singh Pundir, under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, pending in the court of 1st ACJM, Dehradun along with entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. 2. The facts in brief are that an FIR registered as Case Crime No.51 of 2019 was filed by respondent no.2 under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC stating therein that the applicant got executed an agreement to sale of certain property and in lieu of that was paid Rs.5,50,000/- advance by the complainant/ respondent no.2. But even after repeated reminders, the applicant allegedly did not execute the sale deed. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant pleads that the respondent no.2/complainant was not ready and willing to pay the entire sale consideration inspite of repeated reminders. Therefore, he did not execute the said sale deed. 1 He further pleads that the investigation officer after investigation due to lack of evidence submitted a charge- sheet only under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. He further submits that the learned court below without applying his judicial mind has taken cognizance under Sections 420 and 406 IPC without considering the fact that essential ingredients under Sections 420 and 406 IPC are not met from the bare perusal of the FIR. He further stated that the learned court below failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant herself did not pay the entire sale consideration due to which the applicant did not execute the sale deed. He also submits that the applicant inspite of the breach of contract is still ready to return the advance paid by the respondent no.2. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the charges against the accused are very serious in nature the veracity of which could only be reached at after a proper trial. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned proceedings. 5. Accordingly, the present C482 application is hereby dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.05.2025 Ravi 2