IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 669 of 2006 Smt. Gurvinder Kaur & Others ………….. Applicants. Versus State of Uttarakhand & Another………….Respondents Mr. R.S. Sammal, learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1. Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. Dated: November 18, 2009 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (By the Court) Heard Mr. R.S. Sammal, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. By means of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners are seeking quashing of chargesheet submitted by Investigating Officer in Case Crime No. 466 of 2009 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 323, 326, 504 and 506, IPC, Police Station: Rudrapur, District: Udham Singh Nagar and further order of cognizance dated 16.04.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. Petitioners are further seeking fresh investigation in the matter. First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 14.09.2008 by the respondent no. 2, on which Case Crime No. 466 of 2009 was registered. After the investigation, police has filed chargesheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar has taken cognizance vide order dated 16.04.2009. It is well settled law that inheritant power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is available. It is also well settled principle of law that while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot enter into the complicated question of facts. Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under: “239. When accused shall be discharged.- If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.” From the perusal of Section 239 Cr.P.C. it can safely be said that if Magistrate, i) upon considering the police report and documents, ii) making such examination, if any, of the accused, and iii) after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, finds charge against the accused to the groundless, shall discharge the accused. In the present case, learned trial Magistrate, after considering the material collected by the Inquiry Officer and after hearing both the sides, can pass appropriate order. Ordinarily, this Court should not be approached directly, without exhausting remedy available under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure asking this Court to examine the evidence/material collected by the Inquiry Officer to find out as to whether chargesheet should be quashed or not. Applicants still have remedy under Section 239 Cr.P.C. to place his case before the learned Magistrate saying no charge can be framed on the basis of material collected by the Inquiry Officer against the applicants. In view of this, I do not find this is a fit case where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by this Court at this stage. This petition is dismissed with the observation that the applicants can avail the remedy before the learned Magistrate under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate is expected to pass appropriate order after taking into consideration material available on record, as per law. (Alok Singh, J.) 18.11.2009 Amit