IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 677 of 2005 Anant Ram S/o Veer Pal Singh R/o at present Posted as S.O. P.S. Barkhera District Pilibhit … Applicant Vs 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Judicial Magistrate, Nainital District Nainital 3. Prem Sagar Gupta S/o Sri Sriram Gupta R/o Ward No. 10 Lalkuan District Nainital … Respondents Sri Aditya Sah, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate, present for the petitioner Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner has sought quashing of the Criminal Case No. 120 of 2004, Prem Sagar Vs Nanhey & others, related to the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 167, 182, 200, 500 of I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 3 filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate against the applicant. Thereafter, the trial court recorded the statement under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. On the basis of which, learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani took cognizance under Sections 120-B, 167, 182, 200, 500 of I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred this petition for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as entire criminal proceedings initiated against him by the trial court. 2 3. Heard Sri Sri Aditya Sah, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate, present for the petitioner Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complainant has not proved the notice before the trial court. There is no case is made out against the applicant. He has been falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against him are liable to be set aside. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the papers available before me, this court is of the view that in the present case there are disputed questions of fact involve which can not be examined by this court in its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. The points raised in the petition 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 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. 3 6. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 7. Consequently, the stay order dated 04.10.2005 stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 09.07.2010 ASWAL