Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the companyplaint discloses civil dispute.
Respondent 2 inter alia alleged in the companyplaint that he had let out two shops situate in Khatima market to Rajpal Singh on fixed written companyditions.
The appellant and respondents 3 and 4 filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short the Code in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital for quashing of the above mentioned proceedings and for quashing of the order of companynizance dated 22/3/2005 passed thereon by the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima against the appellant and the other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 448 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for short the IPC .
Respondent 2 filed a companyplaint against the appellant, respondents 3, 4 and five others at Police Station Kotwali Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar on 4/1/2005.
By order dated 29/09/2011 Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the said petition.
723 of 2005 charge sheet No.
After Rajpal Singh vacated the shops he wanted to run chicken companyner in the said shops.
Respondent 2s further case in the companyplaint is that the accused have grabbed two years income and materials worth Rs.50,000/. They have also misappropriated an amount of Rs.10,000/ which was given to them in cash by him.
The appellant, respondents 3, 4 an one Rajpal are the accused in Criminal Case No.
He appointed the appellant as Manager and invested Rs.10,000/ for purchasing raw materials.
He filed a civil suit claiming tenancy.
It is necessary to numbere here that office report dated 22/8/2012 indicates that the companytesting respondent i.e. respondent 2 was directed to be served through Resident Commissioner vide Registrars order dated 5/12/2011.
It is pending.
The business picked up and started fetching profit of Rs.1,000/ to Rs.1,500/ per day.
After companyclusion of investigation, charge sheet was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, who took companynizance against the appellant, respondents 3 and 4 and one Rajpal.
Written agreement was prepared companytaining fixed terms and companyditions.
The appellant and other accused prepared false documents and filed them in the companyrt.
He has been told that if he gives Rs.3 lakhs then they would vacate the shop.
A civil suit has been filed by the appellant making similar grievance.
32/2005 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.
23/2002 against respondent 2 in the companyrt of Civil Judge, Jr. Div. ,
According to respondent 2, accused have forcibly taken possession of the shop.
According to respondent 2, they threatened him that if he does number take monthly rent of Rs.750/ he would be killed.
He did number give accounts of the profit.
Leave granted.
Respondent 2 is the companyplainant.
According to respondent 2, the appellant companyspired with others to grab the shop.
Since the Civil Court is seized of the dispute, the High Court should have quashed the companyplaint.
The said order is impugned in this appeal.
