IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.862 OF 2008 (U/S 482 Cr.P.C.) Smt. Manglesh Rastogi ……… Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ……… Respondents Dated: November 17, 2009 Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the applicant Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This application moved u/s 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) is directed with a prayer to quash the order dated 4.12.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Purola, District Uttarkashi in Criminal Case No.322/2008, State Vs. Ashok Kumar and others. It is further prayed to stay the proceedings of aforesaid complaint case during the pendency of this application. Heard Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State and perused the entire material available in file. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in this application are that on 3.9.2007 respondent no.2 Anil Kumar lodged an FIR against four persons including the petitioner with the allegations that on 2.12.2003 his elder brother Ashok Kumar in connivance with the petitioner in the absence of the respondent no.2 and his younger brother had broken the lock of the tenanted portion and shifted the articles kept therein to some unknown place and thereafter had also broken the building for which respondent no.2 had instituted a criminal case u/Ss 380, 457, 406, 427 of IPC against the accused persons. The said case was registered as 2 complaint case no.1729/2004 which is still pending in the court of J.M. (C.B.I), Dehradun. It was further stated that in the aforesaid case the petitioner and other accused have been released on bail. In the aforesaid case a power of attorney dated 11.6.2003 as well as an agreement dated 2.12.2003 have been filed whereas the aforesaid documents were never executed. It was further alleged that Ashok Kumar in connivance with the petitioner had fabricated the signatures of respondent no.2 and his younger brother Sunil Kumar and had got prepared a forged power of attorney and had misused the same. With the above-said averments, respondent no.2 lodged the FIR at P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun on 3.9.2007. The matter was investigated and after completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and two other accused in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Purola, District Uttarkashi. Thereafter this case was registered as Criminal Case No.322/2008. After receiving the charge sheet, learned Judicial Magistrate, Purola vide order dated 4.12.2008 took the cognizance against the petitioner and other accused. Against that order, the petitioner has preferred this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. The counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating the fact that the I.O. during the course of investigation recorded the statements of the complainant (respondent no.2) and other witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, he had found sufficient evidence against the petitioner and on the basis of credible evidence he had submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and that of learned brief holder for the State and after going through the material 3 available on record, there is sufficient evidence collected by the I.O. to proceed against the applicant u/Ss 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. This Court is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy. The powers possessed by the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide, but the plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused persons and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in this application. The C482 application is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.11.2009 RG