IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 608 of 2004 Smt. Rubiya Begum @ Ruby … Applicant Vs State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) & another … Respondents Sri R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the applicant Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2304 of 2004, State of Uttaranchal Vs Asgar Ali & another, relating to offences punishable under Sections 153(B) and 120(B) of I.P.C., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.03.2004 at about 09:45 a.m., the police of Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar arrested one Asgar Ali from the triangle of Mohalla Chauhanan. He was arrested on the information of an informant. After arrested him, the police recovered some photographs, envelop and tickets from his possession and on interrogation, he said that he was involved in sending the information about the country to the Intelligence Department of Pakistan. Thereafter, on the same day at about 12:15 p.m., a First Information Report was lodged by Vinod Kumar Sharma, Inspector, Sector Officer, Kankhal, Ardhkumbh, Haridwar against Asgar Ali with the aforesaid allegations. A case crime No. 87 of 2004 under Sections 153(B) of I.P.C. and Section 3-3/9 of Indian Official Secret Act, 1923 were registered at Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar. After 2 completing the investigation of the matter, the police submitted the chargseheet on 10.05.2004 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar against the Asgar Ali including the name of the applicant - Smt. Rubiya Begum @ Ruby. Thereafter, a case was registered against the applicant for the aforesaid offence and the Magistrate concerned took the cognizance for the aforesaid offence against Asgar Ali as well as Smt. Rubiya Begum @ Ruby on 10.05.2004. The applicant has thus by way of this petition has prayed for quashing the entire aforesaid proceedings of the criminal case pending against her. 3. Heard Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before the Court that the applicant has not concerned or involvement in this alleged case. He has further submitted the she was not named in the First Information Report and her name came into picture, when the chargesheet was submitted. He has also submitted that the respondent has filed the counter affidavit and there is no allegation alleged in the same against her. Therefore, the proceeding initiated against her is abuse of process of court and is liable to be dismissed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, I have gone through the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State/respondent. The State has taken a plea in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit that co-accused – Asgar Ali has specifically stated that during winter vacation the petitioner took him to Pakistan and introduced to some of the I.S.I. Officials. It has also came into picture from the 3 perusal of the record that the applicant visited Pakistan five times and this fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the applicant. Without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, I am of the view that the factual aspect of this case needs evidence to be adduced by the parties before the court concerned and the trial court after considering the evidence on record will decide the matter in accordance with law. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the accusation of the petitioner at this stage, as any judgment rendered by me would amount to pre-trial. Therefore, in view of the above facts as well as the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any abuse of process of court in this case and no flagrant injustice is also going to be caused to the petitioner in the case. 6. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner, is dismissed. Interim stay order dated 24.12.2004 passed by this Court stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 27.03.2010 ASWAL 4