IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 275 of 2004 Arjun Singh Rana … Applicant Vs State of Uttaranchal & another … Opposite Parties Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the applicant Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner/applicant has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.06.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag and for quashing the proceedings of special trial No. 4 of 2004, State of Uttaranchal Vs Arjun Singh Rana under Sections 394, 493, 494, 323, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(i)/10 & 11 of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.09.2003, opposite party No. 2 – Smt. Deepa Devi filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag for registering the First Information Report against the applicant. On the basis of that application, the learned Magistrate First Information Report in case crime No. 4 of 2003 was lodged against the applicant at Patwari Circle Agastmuni under Sections 394, 323, 493, 506 of I.P.C. and 3(i)10 of S.C. and S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The police after investigating the matter submitted the chargesheet under Sections 394, 493, 494, 323, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(i)/10 & 11 of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act before the learned Sessions Judge. 2 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid chargesheet, the petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing the chargesheet and further proceedings of trial No. 4 of 2004 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge. 4. Heard Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before the Court that the matrimonial dispute between the parties has already settled and the opposite party No. 2 wants to depose some new facts before the learned Sessions Judge, through her earlier statement, which also does not disclose any specific offence against the applicant, which is not compoundable. He has further submitted that the complainant falsely implicated the petitioner and the impugned chargesheet filed against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at great length and perusing the documents filed before me, I am of the view that there is no flagrant injustice and abuse of process of court in this case. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are the disputed question of facts and they can be judged by the trial court where the evidence is yet to be collected. At this stage, I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the reliability of the evidence which is yet to be adduced before the court during the course of the trial. Any judgment rendered by me would amount to premature judgment where the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. I do not find any merit in this case at this stage. 3 7. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. The stay order dated 22.06.2004 stands vacated. 8. However, in case, the petitioner moves an application for recalling the opposite party No. 2 – Smt. Deepa Devi – complainant as witness, the court shall consider it in accordance with law. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 18.08.2009 ASWAL