IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Petition No. 1 of 2008 1. Sri Om Prakash S/o Sri Puran Singh 2. Sri Prem Chand S/o Sri Om Prakash 3. Sri Rajiv S/o Sri Om Prakash 4. Smt. Maya W/o Sri Om Prakash 5. Smt. Dulari W/o Sri Mangli 6. Sri Harkesh Singh S/o Sri Malkhan Singh 1 to 6 R/o Village Babar Khera P.O. Kunda P.A. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar 7. Sri Vir Singh S/o not known Village Kala Jhanda P.S. Thakurdwara District Muradabad U.P. … Petitioners Vs Sri Vijay Singh S/o Sri Hari Prasad @ Har Prasad R/o Sanjay Nagar Rudrapur P.S. Rudrapur District Udham Singh Nagar … Respondents Sri Nand Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 05.11.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar as well as quashing further proceeding in Criminal Case No. 5244 of 2007, Vijay Singh Vs Veer Singh & 5 others under sections 452, 504, 506, 323, 392 of I.P.C. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 23.10.2007, the respondent – Vijay Singh filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 147, 148, 152, 504, 506, 392 of I.P.C. On the basis of the said complaint Criminal Case No. 5244 of 2004 has been registered in the court of C.J.M., Rudrapur. Thereafter, the learned C.J.M., Rudrapur recorded the statement of the complainant as well as his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 respectively and summoning order were issued against the petitioners vide order dated 05 .11.2007 against which the petitioners have approached to this Court by way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Heard Sri Nand Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted before this Court that the police has submitted the Final Report in this case and thereafter when the opposite party no. 3 filed a complaint then learned Magistrate without applying his mind, summoned the petitioners which amounts to abuse of process of law. It has also been submitted that the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order did not consider this aspect that in this case the police earlier had submitted Final Report in favour of the petitioners. 5. The complaint (Annexure No. 1 to the petition) clearly reveals that the complainant has specifically mentioned the names of the accused persons and it has also been stated therein that they had entered in his house and looted the valuable jewellary and cash. Further, it also reveals that the complainant has leveled the specific allegations against the petitioners in his complaint, as well as in the statement. 6. I, therefore, do not find any force in these arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order has not kept this fact in mind that earlier the Final Report was submitted in this case as it was not necessary for the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order to consider this aspect. The learned Magistrate had to proceed with the case in the light of the complaint as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. The learned Magistrate on the basis of these documents, reached to the conclusion that there was a prima-facie case to proceed with the accused persons under the aforesaid sections. 7. I, therefore, 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 perusing the evidence, at that stage. 8. 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 High court has the extraordinary or inherent power to reach out injustice and quash the First Information Report as well as 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 is 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.” 9. In view of the aforesaid observation made by 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 stage. 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 trial. At this stage, I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the reliability of the evidenc,e 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. 10. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed in-limine. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 03.01.2008 ASWAL