IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 50 of 2003 Kula Nand Goswami & others … Applicants Vs State of Uttaranchal & another … Opposite parties Sri R.P. Nautiyal, 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. (Oral) By way of this petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders dated 05.09.2002 and 26.02.2003 and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 604 of 2002, Avaar Singh Vs Kula Nand & others, under Sections 392, 427, 504 and 506 (2) of I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 2 – Avatar Singh Negi moved an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. against the applicants/petitioners in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag alleging therein that the applicants have beaten him in his office and braked the articles of his office and the applicants have also threatened him to kill. On the direction of the court, the case was registered in the police station concerned. Thereafter, the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the statement of witness was also recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag took cognizance against the applicants under Sections 392, 427, 504 and 506(2) of I.P.C. vide order dated 05.09.2002. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order, the applicant preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag, which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2003. 2 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned orders the applicants have filed this petition for setting aside the orders passed by the courts below. 4. Heard Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 and perused the record. In spite of sufficient service, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted before the Court that there is nothing in the statement of the complainant as well as witnesses, which may connect the applicants in commission of alleged crime. Hence, the summoning order of the applicants is bad in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. 6. I do not find any force in this argument. The summoning order does not require a meticulous consideration of the evidence. Learned counsel for the applicants has further argued that the prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners, hence, the summoning order is bad and the proceedings initiated against the applicants are liable to be quashed. 7. I again do not find any force in this argument. I am not supposed to assume the role of a trial court and embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability of evidence and sustainability of accusation on a reasonable appreciation of such evidence. On consideration of the allegations made in the complaint, it appears that the ingredients of the offences are disclosed. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised by this Court only to prevent the abuse of 3 process of court or otherwise to secure the end of justice and this power is not to be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. I refrain myself from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been produced before the court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. I do not find any special feature in this case to say that it is not expedient and not in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. 8. I do not find any ground on which I come to the conclusion that in this case flagrant injustice is going to be caused to the applicants. There is no scope to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the present matter. 9. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. The stay order, if any, stands vacated. 10. However, in case, the petitioners/applicants appear before the court concerned for seeking their bail, the trial Judge shall decide the bail applications expeditiously as early as possible without causing any unreasonable delay. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 26.08.2009 ASWAL