IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 297/2008 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Shahid @ Pooja & Another …….Applicants Versus Mahoowa @ Billo Chela Guddi ……Respondent Mr. R.K.S. Verma, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, for the respondent. With CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 302/2008 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Shahid @ Pooja & Another …….Applicants Versus Mahoowa @ Billo Chela Guddi ……Respondent Mr. R.K.S. Verma, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, for the respondent. 12th December, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. The aforetitled two petitions, though arising out of two different incidents, are being disposed of by this common judgment and order as the parties are the same in both the petitions and the dispute involved in both these cases are interconnected giving rise to the Criminal Complaint Case No. 1115/2008 and 1571/2008 respectively. In petition no. 297/2008, the applicants have prayed to quash the order of cognizance dated 20.3.2008, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1115/2008, Mahoowa @ Billo v. Shahid @ Pooja & Others. In second petition no. 302/2008, the same applicants have prayed to quash the order of cognizance dated 17.4.2008, passed by the same court in 2 Criminal Complaint Case No. 1571/2008, Mahoowa @ Billo v. Shahid @ Pooja & Others. 2. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that Mahoowa @ Billo @ Jamshed, the complainant in both these cases, and the accused persons, namely, Shahid @ Pooja, Sabbir @ Bindiya, Israr and Anees, all are eunuchs, and they are engaged in their traditional profession and are active in the area of District Saharanpur, which is adjacent to the limits of police station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar. 3. The dispute arose between the two parties, when one party tried to intrude into the area of operation of the other party. The facts involved in the petition no. 302/2008 are that Mahoowa @ Billo, the complainant, moved an application to Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Haridwar on 26.2.2008 stating that on 25.2.2008, when she was returning from the place Baheri Rajpootana, where construction of her residential house was underway, at about 7 pm, the accused persons intercepted her on account of the animosity for the reasons stated above. They dragged her down on the road from her Scarpio vehicle, and thereafter intimidated her by putting the pistol on her temple. They asked her to withdraw the litigations, otherwise she will be killed. They also snatched her golden chain from her neck and robbed her of rupees ten thousand. When the SSP did not initiate any action against the accused persons, then Mahoowa @ Billo again sent an application through registered post on 7.3.2008. That too met the same fate. Therefore, she moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC on 15.3.2008, whereupon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar directed that the application be registered as a complaint case. The 3 learned Magistrate, after recording the statement of complainant under Section 200 CrPC and statements of the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC, took cognizance of the offences on 17.4.2008 and asked all the accused persons to stand trial for the offences punishable under Section 392 & 506 IPC. 4. The facts of another petition no. 297/2008 is that on 28.2.2008 at about 7 pm, the accused persons entered in the house of complainant Mahoowa and threatened her to withdraw her application made to SSP on 26.2.2008 (stated above). When the complainant did not succumb to their demand, the accused persons became very angry. Shahid and Sabbir embraced the complainant, while Anees strived to strangulate her. On hearing the screams, witnesses Rao Istikar, Naushad and driver Sompal Sharma came to the rescue of the complainant. This time Mahoowa @ Billu filed a complaint on 4.3.2008 with these averments. The learned Magistrate after recording the statements of the complainants and the abovenamed witnesses, passed the impugned order of cognizance dated 20.3.2008, asking the accused persons to stand trial for the offences punishable under Section 452, 323, 504 & 506 IPC. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, it transpires that a Criminal Complaint Case No. 1028/2008, Shahid @ Pooja v. Jamshed @ Mahoowa, is pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur for the offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC. Another Criminal Complaint Case No. 348/2004, Shahid v. Madan Lal & Others, under Section 326, 342 IPC pertaining to police station Sadar Bazar, Saharanpur is also pending, wherein Mahoowa @ Billo is also one of the accused. 4 6. The aforesaid facts indicate that parties are indulged in several cross criminal litigations against each other. Facts at this stage are very hazy. This Court is of the view that since both these petitions involve factual controversies, therefore, this Court, in its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, is not supposed to look into and adjudicate any such controversy, unless the same amounts to abuse of the process of court. The same shall be ascertained by the trial court after recording the evidence. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders of cognizance dated 20.3.2008 and 17.4.2008 impugned in petition no. 297/2008 and 302/2008 respectively. Both these petitions are meritless and liable to be dismissed. 7. Resultantly, both these petitions are dismissed. Stay order dated 14.5.2008, passed separately in both petition are hereby vacated. 8. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly so that the trial against the accused applicants may proceed further. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 12.12.2011 Prabodh