IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 433 of 2004 Vimal Singh & others … Applicants Vs State of Uttarakhand & another … Respondents Sri Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the applicants Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal,J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought for quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 286 of 2003, Chandra Pal Singh Vs Vimal Singh & others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun 2. Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 2 – Chandra Pal Singh filed a complaint on 10.01.2003 before Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dehradun and the matter was investigated by the Circle Officer, Mussorrie and the report in this regard submitted before the Senior Authorities. Thereafter, he filed another complaint under Sections 147/323/504/506 of I.P.C. and 3(a)(X) SC/ST Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in which, the petitioners were summoned under the aforesaid sections by learned by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 09.03.2004 against the applicants. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate, the applicants have preferred this petition before this Court. 4. Heard Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the 2 State/respondent No. 1, Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted before the Court that the opposite party No. 2 – Chandra Pal Singh falsely implicates the name of the applicants in this case. He has further submitted that prior to this complaint, in another complaint, no offence was made out against the applicants and thereafter, in order to falsely implicate the applicants, the opposite party No. 2 lodged this complaint against them, which appears to be erroneous in the eye of law. Therefore, the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed. 6. After going through the entire material available before me, I do not agree with the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners. Perusal of the record reveals that the learned Magistrate, on the basis of the complaint as well as evidence available on record summoned the petitioners to face the trial. 7. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in JT 1995 (3) Supreme Court 166 reported in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thirukkural Perumal has clearly observed, which reads as under:- “The power of quashing the F.I.R. and criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly by the Courts. Indeed the Court has the extraordinary or inherent power to reach out injustice and quash the First Information Report as well as criminal proceedings, keeping in view the guidelines laid down by this Court in various judgments, but the same has to be done with circumspection. The normal process of the criminal trial 3 cannot be cut short in a rather casual manner. The Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the F.I.R. of complainant on the basis of evidence collected during the investigation only while dealing with the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing the F.I.R. and the criminal proceedings.” 8. In view of the aforesaid observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any abuse of process of the court in this case at this stage. The submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners relate to the factual aspect of the matter and that can be examined and assessed by the trial court during the course of the trial. At this stage, I am not supposed 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. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 10. The stay order dated 06.10.2004 stands vacated. 11. However, in case, the petitioners appear before the court below where the trial is pending, in order to obtain their bails, the same shall be decided expeditiously without causing any unreasonable delay. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) March 27, 2010 ASWAL 4