IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 148 of 2005 1. Rao Javed S/o Sri Rao Ikbal 2. Rao Ikbal S/o Sri Nazir Both R/o Mohalla Satti Roorkee Police Station Kotwali, Roorkee District Haridwar … Applicants Vs 1. State of Uttaranchal/Uttarakhand 2. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar District Haridwar 3. Smt Praveen Rao W/o Sri Rao Javed D/o Sri Rao Jamshad R/o Village Salempur Police Station Ranipur District Haridwar … Opp. Parties Alongwith Criminal Misc. Application No. 282 of 2005 1. Smt. Sayeeda W/o Sri Rao Ikbal 2. Km. Sabeena D/o Sri Rao Ikbal Both R/o Mohalla – Satti Roorkee Police Sation Kotwali, Roorkee District Haridwar … Applicants Vs 1. State of Uttaranchal/Uttarakhand 2. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar District Haridwar 3. Smt Praveen Rao W/o Sri Rao Javed D/o Sri Rao Jamshad R/o Village Salempur Police Station Ranipur District Haridwar … Opp. Parties Sri Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent No. 3 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. 2 By means of these two petitions, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 517 of 2005, State Vs Rao Javed & others, relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 2. It is pleaded by the petitioners in the petition that the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 – Rao Javed was solemnized with opposite party No. 3 – Smt. Praveen Rao on 04.01.1996. On 24.11.2004, opposite party No. 3 filed a First Information Report as Case Crime No. 263 of 2004, under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants with the allegations that she was married about six and half years back with the applicant No. 1 – Rao Javed and since then she was subjected to cruelty by all the applicants for the damand of dowry. She has further stated that on 19.11.2004, all the applicants came to her house and tried to burn her. The matter was investigated by the police and after completing the investigation of the case, the Investigation Officer submitted the chargesheet against the applicants under the aforesaid sections and the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 517 of 2005 against the applicants. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioners in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 3 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order, the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing of proceedings of criminal case pending before the court below. 4. Heard Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted before the Court that the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 are living separately, therefore, the allegations against them appear to be false and the proceedings against them are liable to be set aside. He has further submitted that only with a view to take revenge from the petitioners, the complainant falsely implicated the name of the petitioners in the report. 4. Sri Pankaj Miglan has made a rival contention and invited my attention towards counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, in which, it has submitted that the applicants have annexed the false and forged photocopy of ration card. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has further invited my attention towards annexure No. CA1, which is a voter list, in which, the name of respondent No. 3 has been shown with the family members of the applicants. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 3 and the applicants are living separately. 4 5. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this court finds that the factual aspect of the matter whether any demand was made or not can be better examined, in the present case, by the trial court. It is not desirable on the part of this case to hold as to correctness in the allegation made in the criminal complaint, on the basis of incomplete evidence before it. 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. However, this Court is not inclined to go into the factual aspects of the matter, as it is for the trial court to see the same. 6. Accordingly, both the petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are dismissed, with the observation that the petitioners may raise plea of innocence before the trial court. 7. Consequently, the stay orders passed by this Court in both the petitions stand vacated. 5 8. Let the copy of this order be place in C-482 No. 282 of 2005. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 28.06.2010 ASWAL