Court No. 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Restoration application no. 138/2008 Delay condonation application no. 51/2008 In Criminal Misc. Application No. 256 of 2002 1- Shyamendra Bhushan s/o (L.) Jagdish Prasad 2- Kulbhushan s/o Shyamendra Bhushan 3- Smt. Shalandra Bhushan w/o Shyamendra Bhushan All R/o 217 Purva Deen Dayal, Police Station-Gang Nagar, Roorkee, District Haridwar …Applicants Vs. 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate Hardwar 3. S.H.O. Kankhal, District Haridwar 4. Smt. Naresh Kumari w/o Sardari Lal R/o 15, Virich Villa, Vishnu Garden, P. S. Kankhal, District Haridwar …. Respondents Sri S.K. Shandilya, Advocate, for the applicants. Learned A.G.A for respondent no.1. Sri Parikshit Saini, Advocate, for respondent no. 4. Dated: February 20, 2008 Hon’ble B. C. Kandpal, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants on delay condonation application and perused the affidavit filed in support thereto. I find sufficient ground to allow the delay condonation application. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. Also, heard learned counsel for the applicants on restoration application and perused the affidavit filed in support thereto. I find sufficient ground to allow the restoration application. Accordingly, restoration application is allowed. The order dated 29.11.2007 is hereby recalled. By way of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioners have sought the relief for quashing the cognizance taken on the charge sheet by Magistrate against the petitioners and charge sheet filed against the petitioners in Case Crime No. 95/2001 under Sections 323, 420, 506 and 498A of IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners under Sections 323, 420 506 and 498A of IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. During investigation, police recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners in respect of Case Crime No. 95 of 2001. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the police, took cognizance against the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed this petition before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties 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. I do not find any mistake in the impugned order passed by the Magistrate concerned. The points raised by learned counsel for the petitioners are the disputed questions of fact and the same require scrutiny by the trial court. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility of the evidence which is yet to be adduced before the trial court during the course of trial. Any judgment rendered by me at this stage would amount to a pre-trial as the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Stay order, if any, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J) SP