IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 604 of 2004 Asharam & others … Applicants Vs State of Uttaranchal & others … Respondents None has appeared on behalf of the applicants Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Case called out twice. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the applicants before the Court to argue the case. From the perusal of the order sheet, it reveals that on the earlier occasion, when the matter was taken up before the Court, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioners before the Court. 3. Today, therefore, heard learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents and perused the record. 4. As per the First Information Report there is a specific allegation leveled against the petitioners that they kidnapped Km. Kusum – minor daughter of the complainant – Vijaypal. The police investigated the matter and submitted the chargesheet. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the relevant witnesses. The court below while passing the summoning order against the petitioners under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C. has specifically mentioned that as per the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Rajveer and Mukesh are involved in the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of I.P.C. 5. The petitioner has filed the copy of the statement of prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has stated that she had gone on her own wish along with one Rajveer Singh and she has 2 also stated that she intends to stay with Rajveer Singh but the medially examination report of Km. Kusum shows when the offence took place, her age was less then 18 years. However, these aspects are to be assessed by the trial court during the course of trial. 6. After hearing learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents as well as going through the record, I am of the view that there is no flagrant injustice and abuse of process of court in this case. The evidences are incomplete and hazy as yet. The points raised by the learned counsel for the applicants are the disputed question of facts and it can be judged by the trial court where the evidence are yet to be collected. 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 applicants 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. 7. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 8. Consequently, the interim order passed by this Court stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 21.08.2009 ASWAL