IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 526 of 2006 1. Rao Javed S/o Sri Rao Ikbal 2. Rao Iqbal S/o Sri Rao Nazeer Both R/o Mohalla Satti Roorkee Police Station Kotwali, Roorkee District Haridwar … Applicants Vs 1. State of Uttaranchal/Uttarakhand 2. 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Haridwar 3. Smt Praveen Rao W/o Sri Rao Javed D/o Sri Rao Jamshad, R/o Village Salempur Police Station Ranipur District Haridwar … Opp. Parties Sri Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent No. 3 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 840 of 2006, Smt. Parveen Rao Vs Rao Javed & others, relating to offence punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 3 – Smt. Parveen Rao filed a criminal complaint against the applicants as New Criminal Complaint Case No. 840 of 2006, Smt. Parveen Rao Vs Rao Javed & others, under Section 406 at Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar. It has been averred in the complaint that she got married with the petitioner No. 1 – Rao Javed on 28.11.1998 according to Muslim Law and in the marriage her family members had 2 given valuable articles to the applicants. She has further averred that all the articles and jewelries mentioned in the complaint is her Stridhan. After recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioners to face the trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted before the Court that soon after one year of the marriage, respondent NO. 3 occupied an accommodation on rent and is living separately with her husband. He has further submitted that the learned Magistrate committed grave error of law by summoning the petitioners in the case without there being any evidence against them. 4. On the other hand, Sri Pankaj Miglan has made a rival contention and has denied the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants. He has also submitted that the plea taken in the petition about period of marriage is also incorrect. He has also stated in the counter affidavit that Smt. Parveen Rao was not happy in her in-laws house, as they were continuously demanding dowry from her parents. 5. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this court finds that the factual aspect of the matter whether any demand was made or not can be better examined, in the present case, by the trial court. It is not desirable on the part of this case to hold as to correctness 3 in the allegation made in the criminal complaint, on the basis of incomplete evidence before it. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not supposed to act as a trial judge. The averments made in the petition are the disputed question of fact, which can be assessed and judged by the trial court. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility of the evidence at this stage. Any judgment rendered by me would amount to premature judgment where the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. The applicant shall have an opportunity to place the evidence in their defence before the trial court where the matter shall be finally adjudicated after considering the entire evidence. I do not find any merit in this case at this stage. However, this Court is not inclined to go into the factual aspects of the matter, as it is for the trial court to see the same. 6. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed, with the observation that the petitioners may raise plea of innocence before the trial court. 7. Consequently, the stay order dated 12.07.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 28.06.2010 ASWAL