IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 228/2005 Smt. Shyama Kaul .. Petitioner Vs. State of Uttaranchal & another .. Respondents Sri L.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the State. Mr. A. K.Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.2. Dated: 18-05-2010 [Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral)] By way of this petition, U/S 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire proceeding of complaint case No. 2794/2002, Moti Lal Kaul vs. Pran Nath Rajdan and others, U/S 500 I.P.C. pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Dehradun. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the complainant/respondent no.2. That a case U/S 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act No 443/2002, Smt. Shyama Kaul vs. Moti Lal Kaul is pending before Family Court, Dehradun. Witnesses have filed affidavits before the learned Judge. At this complainant filed a complaint before the Court U/S 500 I.P.C. and the same was registered as complaint case no. 2794/2004, Motilal Kaul vs. Pran Nath Rajdan and others. The allegation of the complainant is that he has been defamed by filing affidavits in lieu of evidence. The learned Magistrate recorded statement of complainant U/S 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses U/S 202 Cr.P.C. and finding a prima facie case vide order dated 4.2.2003 summoned the petitioner to face trial U/S 500 I.P.C. Hence this petition is filed. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that summoning of applicant and two other accused is illegal. The learned Magistrate passed the order without application of mind and the same is liable to be dismissed. At this stage I do not find any force in the above submission. The learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order after perusal of statements U/Ss 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and entire material available on record. I am of the view that there is no flagrant injustice and abuse of process of court in this case. The evidence is still incomplete and hazy. This court while exercising the jurisdiction U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is not supposed to act as a trial Judge. The averments made in the petition are the disputed question of act, 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. The applicant shall have an opportunity to place the evidence in his 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 petition, at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim stay, dated 26-4-2005, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB