IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 185 of 2003 Devendra Singh & others … Applicants Vs State of Uttaranchal & another … Opposite Parties And Criminal Misc. Application No. 412 of 2004 Devendra Singh & others … Applicants Vs State of Uttaranchal & another … Opposite Parties Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the applicants Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of petition No. 185 of 2003, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought relief to quash the impugned orders dated 02.08.2003 and 19.09.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/4th Fast Track Court, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2003, Devendra Singh & others Vs State of Uttaranchal & others and Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 705 of 2003 (Old No. 2074 of 2001, Smt, Shivani Vs Devendra Singh & others. 2. By way of this petition No. 412 of 2004, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought relief to quash the order dated 20.02.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 261 of 2003, State Vs Devendra Singh & others. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 2 – Mrs. Shivani was married with Devendra Singh 2 (applicant No. 1). After the marriage, opposite party No. 2 left the house and started residing at her matrimonial house. The opposite party No. 2 lodged the First Information Report against the applicants. She also filed a Criminal Complaint Case No. 2074 of 2001 (new No. 705 of 2003) under Sections 406 and 506 of I.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun. The trial court after recording the statement of the complainant as well as witness under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. issued summons to the applicants to face the trial under Section 406 of I.P.C. vide order dated 19.09.2001. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order, the applicants preferred a revision before the District & Sessions Judge, Dehradun, which was also dismissed vide order dated 02.08.2003. Thereafter, again the opposite party No. 2 filed an application before the learned A.C.J.M. – Vth, Dehradun against the applicants and on the said application, learned Judicial Magistrate IInd, Dehradun passed an order on 14.08.2000 for registering the case against the applicants. The police registered the First Information Report against the applicants as Case Crime No. 129 of 2000 under Sections 498A, 323 of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigating the matter the police submitted the chargesheet on 30.09.2000 under the aforesaid sections before the court concerned. On the basis of the chargesheet, the trial court took cognizance and framed the charges against the applicants under the aforesaid sections and Criminal Case No. 261 of 2004, State Vs Devendra Singh & others was registered. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the courts below in both the criminal cases, the applicants have preferred these petitions before this Court for quashing the aforesaid proceedings against petitioners. 3 5. Heard Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the opposite party No. 2 – Smt. Shivani left the house of her husband without any reasonable cause and residing at her matrimonial house. The opposite party No. 2 lodged the complaint against he applicant only to harass and defame the applicants. There is no case made out against the applicants. 7. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that there is no abuse of process of Court in this case. The Trial Judge has not committed any error in passing the summoning order. Although, the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. This Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of the power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of the State should normally refrain from giving a premature decision in the case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Any decision to be rendered by this Court would amount to pre-trial of the case. The evidence is yet to be concluded by the trial judge and whatever the defence, the petitioners intend to advance at this stage, may adduce before the Trial Judge, who shall decide the matter after perusing the entire material available before him on merits. 4 8. I do not find any ground to interfere in the criminal proceedings which are pending before the Trial Judge at this stage. I also do not find any abuse of process of court in the impugned order as well as in the criminal proceedings which is pending before the Trial Judge. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. The stay orders passed in both the petitions are stand vacated. 10. Let the copy of this order be placed in C-482 No. 412 of 2004. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 21.08.2009 ASWAL