IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 113 of 2005 Smt. Noor Jahan & another … Applicants Vs State of Uttaranchal & others … Opposite Parties Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the applicants. Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants/petitioners for quashing the Complaint Case No. 41 of 2005,Gulam Mustafa Vs Smt. Noor Jahan & another, under Sections 497, 352, 504, 506, 323 of I.P.C. pending in the court of 1st Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., filed by opposite party No. 3 – Gulam Mustafa on 14.12.2004 in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar against the present applicants, which was rejected by the learned magistrate on 04.01.2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 3 lodged a private complaint case against the applicants on the same facts in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, which was registered as complaint case No. 41 of 2005. Thereafter, the statement under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Magistrate and issued summoning order vide order dated 25.01.2005, under Sections 497, 352, 504, 506, 323 of I.P.C. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order, the applicants have preferred this appeal for quashing the aforesaid criminal proceedings. 4. Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners has submitted that the complaint which has been filed by the opposite party No. 3 is baseless and frivolous. It is also submitted that the complaint is a counter blast to the report made by the petitioner No. 1 against him. 6. Learned A.G.A. has made the rival contention before the Court and has submitted that the trial court has not committed any illegality while passing the summoning order. The trial court on the basis of the evidence available before it, summoned the applicants. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted before the Court that the trial court has committed error while summoning the petitioner No. 1, who is the wife of opposite party No. 3 under Section 497 of I.P.C. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available before me, I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Magistrate after being satisfied that an offence under Sections 497, 352, 504, 506, 323 of I.P.C. are prima facie made out on perusal of the documents available on record. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial court. The points raised by the learned counsel for the applicants are the disputed question of facts and it can be judged by the trial court where the evidence are yet to be collected. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not supposed to act as a trial judge. The averments made in the petition are the disputed question of fact, which can be assessed and judged by the trial court. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility of the evidence at this stage. Any judgment rendered by me would amount to premature judgment where the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. The applicants shall have an opportunity to place the evidence in their defence before the trial court where the matter shall be finally adjudicated after considering the entire evidence. I do not find any merit in this case at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 10. Consequently, the stay order dated 02.03.2005 stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 17.05.2010 ASWAL