THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 446/2005 Sripal and others ………….. Applicants. Versus State of Uttaranchal & others … Respondents. Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State. None has appeared for respondent No.3. [ Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.] By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the summoning order dated 17-3-2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, as well as, for quashing the entire proceeding of criminal case No. 1547 of 2004, Natthi Singh Vs. Sripal and others, U/Ss 324, 506 I.P.C. pending before Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. The brief facts of the case are that Natthi Singh (respondent No.3) filed a complaint case against the accused/petitioners before Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee with the allegations that on 12.9.2004 at about 8 p.m. his daughter-in-law Smt. Madhubala was coming to his house from her father’s house and when she reached near Subhashnagar, all the accused/petitioners with intention to kill her gave knife blows on her person. They also abused her and she was saved by the pedestrians. The injured was admitted in Government Hospital, Roorkee. Thereafter written report was lodged at P.S. Gangnahar. As the police did not take any action in the matter, therefore, the complaint case was also filed in the court. 2 The Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, recorded the statement of Natthi Singh (complainant) under section 200Cr.P.C. and the statements of P.W.1, Pramod, P.W.2, Madhubala, and P.W.3, Dr. Ajai Agarwal, under section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate after hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the entire evidence on record, passed the summoning order dated 17.3.2005 against the accused/petitioners to face trial U/Ss 324 and 506 I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved the accused/petitioners have preferred this petition for setting aside the charge sheet, as well as, for quashing the entire proceeding of criminal case pending against them. Heared Sri Rajednra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. None has appeared for respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity with a view to harass and torture them and the criminal proceedings before the trial court are abuse of process of court and the same are liable to be quashed. After having gone through the entire material available on record and having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.G.A. I do not find any substance in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. 3 Perusal of impugned summoning order reveals that the injured Smt. Madhubala was saved by P.W.1, Pramod at the hands of the accused. The injured P.W.2, Madhubala also named all the accused/petitioners as an assailants. P.W.3, Dr. Ajai Agarwal also proved the injuiries on the person of Smt. Madhubala. Therefore, prima facie case is made out against the accused/petitioners to summon them and the learned Judicial Magistrate has passed the summoning order having sufficient material before him. In proceedings 482 Cr.P.C. this court is not supposed to embark upon an inquiry about the authenticity of the entire case when the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. I do not find any force in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 19-7-2005 is vacated. However, if the petitioners move bail application before the trial court, then the trial court shall expedite the disposal of the bail application. Dated: 27-03-2010. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB