IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 224 of 2005 Sahil Ahmad & others … Applicants Vs State of Uttaranchal & another … Opposite Parties Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the applicants Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 Sri Vikas Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants/petitioners for quashing the order dated 02.02.2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 208 of 2005, under Sections 498A, 323 of I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 – Sahil got married to Shaheen (sister of respondent No. 2 – Shahnawaz Khan) on 21.12.2002. It is further alleged that on 03.08.2004 – she left the matrimonial home of the petitioner No. 1 and took away entire jewellary and valuable clothes. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 (complainant) lodged the First Information Report at Police Station Patel Nagar against the petitioners. After completing the investigation of the case, the police submitted the chargesheet against the petitioners. Where after, the Magistrate summoned the petitioners, in respect of offence punishable under Section 498-A and 323 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the 2 State/respondent No. 1, Sri Vikash Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri D.C.S. Rawat and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted before the Court that the petitioner No. 2, 3 and 4 are living separately, therefore, the allegations against these persons appear to be false and the proceedings against them are liable to be set aside. He has further submitted that only to take revenge from the petitioners; the complainant falsely implicated the name of the petitioners in the report. 5. Learned A.G.A. has made a rival contention and invited my attention towards para No. 8 of the counter affidavit, in which, it has been stated that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are five brothers and the complainant specifically named the petitioners in the report, as they demanded dowry from his sister - Shaheen. He has further submitted that sister of the complainant was divorced in the month of March, 2002 and this fact was in the knowledge of petitioners and his family members. 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 evidences are incomplete and hazy as yet. 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 3 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 19.07.2005 stands vacated. 17.04.2010 ASWAL (B.C. Kandpal, J.)