IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 34 of 2005 1. Sohan Singh S/o Paramjit Singh 2. Arsha Deep Singh S/o Sri Paramjit Singh 3. Paramjit Singh S/o Sri Dharam Singh All R/o Village Barkheri P.S. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar … Petitioners Vs 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Rajesh S/o Sri Parshadi Lal R/o Village Barkheri P.S. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar … Respondents Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri A.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 987 of 2004 State Vs Sohan Singh & others pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 filed the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. The case was registered as Case Crime No. 219 of 2004, under Sections 427, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1) X S.C./S.T. Act. The police after completing the investigation submitted the chargesheet against the petitioners. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, registered the Criminal Case No. 987 of 2004 and took cognizance against the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the process against the petitioner to face the trial. Feeling aggrieved by the submission of chargesheet as well as summoning order, the petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case, against him. 3. Heard Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are the disputed question of facts and they can be judged by the trial court where the evidence is yet to be collected. At this stage, I am not suppose to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the reliability of the evidence which is yet to be adduced before the court during the course of the trial. Any judgment rendered by me would amount to premature judgment where the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. I do not find any merit in this case at this stage. 5. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed in-limine. 6. Stay order dated 19.01.2005 stands vacated. 09.01.2008 (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ASWAL