IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 706 of 2008 Roshan Mohammad. …..…Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …….Respondents. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 1. By way of present petition filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal of Procedure, petitioner is assailing the chargesheet dated 18.06.2008 filed under section 498 A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and the entire proceedings of the criminal case no. 1221 of 2008 arising therefrom. Impugned chargesheet was filed way back on 18.06.2008. Cognizance had also been taken thereon on 25.06.2008. While exercising powers under section 482 of Code of Criminal of Procedure in a petition seeking quashing of the chargesheet and cognizance order, this court has limited jurisdiction. This Court is not supposed to re- appreciate the evidence or alibi which can be taken during the trial. The only thing which can be seen at this stage is – As to whether from the material collected by the Investigating Officer prima facie case can be said to have 2 been made out against the accused justifying the cognizance or not. I have perused the material collected by the Investigating Officer which has been placed before me with the supplementary affidavit. From the contents of the First Information Report and material collected by the Investigating Officer offence under section 498 A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act can be said to have been made out against the accused justifying the cognizance order. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order. Mr. Ramji Srivastava stated that since chargesheet was filed way back in the year 2008 and proceedings are on before the Trial Court, hence, petitioner should be granted liberty to argue on discharge. In view of this, I do not find any justification to interfere with the proceedings pending in the court below pursuant to the impugned chargesheet. However, as stated by Mr. Ramji Srivastava, it would be open to the petitioner to argue on discharge. Petition is dismissed summarily. (Alok Singh, J.) 15.12.2009 SKS