IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 32 of 2005 Om Prakash S/o Late Sri Murari Lal and five others .. Applicants. Versus Judicial Magistrate Kashipur and another ……. Opposite Parties Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.S.Adhikari, A.G.A. for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) By means of this petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing of the criminal complaint case No. 1189 of 2004, Smt. Sia Ruhela Vs. Anil Kumar Ruhela, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District U.S. Nagar, as well as its consequential proceeding i.e. summoning order dated 05-11-2004, passed in the case and also for quashing the bailable warrants dated 11-01-2005. Brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that marriage of Anil Kumar son of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 was solemnized with opposite party No.2 Smt. Sia Ruhela on 27.6.2003. After the marriage, the applicants started raising their unlawful demand of dowry from the parents of the bride and when the demand of dowry was not fulfilled, the applicants started ill-treating her. On 7- 9-2003 when the opposite party No.2 was taking her break-fast the accused-applicants abused her and did marpit with her and turned her out of their house telling her that if she did not bring Rs. 50,000/- cash and a Motorcycle from her parents, she would not be permitted to live at her inlaws house. At this she went at her parental house. Thereafter on 28-8-2004 the accused persons came at her parents house and started beating her. At her raising alarm, some neighbouring persons arrived there and saved her from the clutches of the accused persons. The accused went away after extending threats to the life of opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 sent a written report to S.S.P. Udham Singh by registered post against the accused persons. Thereafter she lodged a criminal complaint against 2 the accused persons U/Ss 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, before Judicial Magistrate Kashipur. The learned Judicial Magistrate Kashipur recorded the statement of Smt. Sita Ruhela U/S 200 Cr.P.C. as P.W.1 and also recorded the statements of Ram Ratan Bisnoi as C.W.1, and Akhtar Ali as C.W.2. The learned Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence of complainant as well as the evidence of her witnesses, being satisfied that prima facie a criminal case U/Ss 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the accused persons, passed summoning order dated 5-11-2004. Notices were sent to the accused persons but they did not turn up before the court, hence the learned Magistrate issued bailable warrants against the accused persons vide order dated 5-1-2004. Feeling aggrieved by the above summoning order as well as the order issuing of bailable warrants, the accused/applicants have preferred this petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal complaint as well as the summoning order and bailable warrants issued against them. I have heard Mr. Arvind Vashist learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party No.1. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. This court vide order dated 19-1-2005, granted interim relief staying the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1189/2004, Smt. Sita Ruhela Vs. Anil Kumar, pending the court of Judicial Magistrate Kashipur and directed the opposite party No.2 to appear before the Marriage Conciliation Centre Udham Singh Nagar on 10-2-2005. But parties have not arrived at a compromise and reconciliation proceeding could not materialised. I have perused the impugned summoning order. The learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order after being satisfied with the evidence of the complainant as well as the witnesses, which was recorded U/S 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. He has passed a detailed order summoning the accused persons to face trial. Prima facie I do not find any illegality in the impugned summoning order. Now the accused have to appear before the Judicial Magistrate and evidence is yet to be recorded in the criminal 3 complaint case. It is pertinent to mention here that I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry in a case U/S 482 Cr.P.C. where the evidence is still incomplete and hazy and any judgment rendered by this court would amount to a premature judgment. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, the application has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. The Criminal Misc. Application is dismissed. The interim order dated 19-1-2005, stands vacated. However, the accused/applicants are directed to appear before the Magistrate concerned on or before 10-1-2011. Till then execution of bailable warrants issued against them shall be kept in abeyance. Dated: 08-12-2010 (B.S.Verma, J.) ISB 4