IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 960 of 2006 1. Prahlad Singh S/o Sri Nandan Singh R/o Ward No. 6 Khatima District Udham Singh Nagar 2. Jaggu @ Jagdish Kanyal S/o Sri Chandra Singh R/o Dewari, Police Station Khatime District Udham Singh Nagar .......Petitioners Vs 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Senior Superintendent of Police 3. Puran Lal Verna, S.S.I. Police Station Khatima District Udham Singh Nagar .....Respondents Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners Learned A.G.A. for the Sate/respondents No. 1 and 2 Hon'ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 08.02.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar as well as quashing further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 93 of 2006, State Vs Prahalad Singh 7 others, under Sections 147, 148, 342, 283, 34 of I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one- Puran Chandra Verma-Senior Sub-Inspector, Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar had filed ad First Information Report on 02.12.2005 against the petitioners and about 47 other persons under Sections 147, 148, 342, 283, 24 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. The police after investigating the case submitted the chargsheet before the Judicial Magistrate, Khtima. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate issued summoning order against the petitioners in order to face the trial Criminal Case No. 93 of 2006, State Vs Prahalad Singh 7 others, under Sections 14, 148, 342, 283, 34 of I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act which is under challenge by way of this petition. 3. Heard Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Magistrate while passing order did not go through the entire evidence available on record and summoning order was passed in a mechanical manner. Therefore, the summoning order as well as the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 5. I do not agree with the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. Perusal of the record reveals that the learned Magistrate, on the basis of the chargesheet submitted by the police station concerned as well as the evidence available on record summoned the petitioners to face the trial under Section 147, 148, 342, 283, 34 of I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. 6. After carefully going through the entire record, I do not find any justification for interference in the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate as the same has been passed by him, after considering the entire material available before him. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in JT 1995 (3) Supreme Court 166 reported in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thirukkural Perumal has clearly observed, which reads as under:- "The power of quashing the F.I.R. and criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly by the Courts. Indeed the Court has the extraordinary or inherent power to reach out injustice and quash the First Information Report as well criminal proceedings, keeping in view the guidelines laid down by this Court in various judgments, but the same has to be done with circumspection. The normal process of the criminal trial cannot be cut short in a rather casual manner. The Court in not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the F.I.R. of complainant on the basis of evidence collected during the investigation only while dealing with the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing the F.I.R. and the criminal proceedings." 8. In view of the aforesaid observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any abuse of process of the court in this case at this state. The submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners relate to the factual aspect of the matter and that can be examined and assessed by the trial court during the course of the trial. 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. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed in-limine. 10. The stay order dated 28.11.2006 stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 07.01.2008 ASWAL