IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 273 of 2005 Mahesh Joshi & another … Applicants Vs State of Uttaranchal & another … Opposite Parties Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the applicants Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants/petitioners for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4346 of 2005, State Vs Mahesh & another, under Sections 148(A), 323, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 – Mahesh Joshi got married to respondent No. 2 – Meeta Joshi on 28.06.2004 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Respondent No. 2 lodged the First Information Report against the applicant No. 1 and his family members on 23.07.2004 with the allegation that they have harassed and tortured her for non-fulfillment their demand of dowry. It has further alleged that they demanded a motorcycle and Rs. 20.00 lakhs for fulfilling their demand of dowry. On the basis of the first information report a case crime No. 62 of 2004, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was registered at police station Basant Vihar, District Dehradun. After completing the investigation of the case, the police submitted the chargesheet against the applicants in the court of Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun. Thereafter, a Criminal Case No. 4346 of 2005 was registered against the applicants under the aforesaid sections. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicants have preferred this petition for quashing the proceedings under the aforesaid case. 4. Heard Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted before the Court that the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing, but only counter blast of the notice dated 13.07.2003, which was sent by the applicant No. 1 to respondent No. 2 whereby requesting her to settle the dispute peacefully with the applicant No. 1. He has also submitted that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case, only to take revenge. It has further submitted that there is no combination between a motorcycle and Rs. 20.00 lakhs in case as a demand of dowry. He has submitted that in case, the petitioners wants the demand of dowry, they would demand at least a car along with the huge amount, as mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants appears to be the abuse of process of Court, which is liable to be set aside. 6. After having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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. The police submitted the chargesheet against the petitioners after completing the investigation. The points raised by the learned counsel for the applicants are the disputed question of facts and it can be judged by the trial court where the evidence are yet to be collected. 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 applicants 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. 7. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 8. Consequently, the stay order dated 10.05.2005 stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 17.04.2010 ASWAL