IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 46/2005 Max Valle Willson .. Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal & others .. Respondents. Mr. Manish Arora, learened counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned AGA for respondents 1 to 4. None appeared for respondent No.5. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.(Oral) Dated: 15-04-2010 By way of this petition, U/S 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 5-6-2004, passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Laksar, in case No.932/2004, Lal Singh Vs. Max Valle Willson, U/Ss 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. as well as the revisional order dated 15.12.2004, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/ Ist F.T.C. Roorkee in Crl. Revision No. 229/2004 and the entire proceeding of aforesaid criminal case. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.5, filed a complaint case with the allegation that he is posted a Ward Boy in Primary Health Center Lakshar and the accused/applicant is posted as Chaukidar there. On 22.7.2003 at about 7.40 A.M. the applicant abused him and got injured him by knife. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant U/S 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses Saroj Sharma and Sundar Lal U/S 202 Cr.P.C. and after considering the entire material available on record, took cognizance 2 against the accused/applicant to face trial U/Ss 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. vide impugned order dated 5.6.2004. Against the summoning order the accused preferred criminal revision No. 229/2004, which was dismissed by revisional court vide judgment dated 15.12.2004. Now the petitioner has preferred this petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C. before this court. Heard Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier a complaint case was instituted by the wife of applicant against respondent No.5 and another before ACJM Roorkee on 3.5.2002 and the present case is the counter- blast of that complaint case. He also submitted that the criminal complaint has been filed after about 9 months of the incident. Therefore, the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. Perusal of record reveals that the learned Magistrate has passed the detailed summoning order after considering the statements of the complainant and his witnesses and other material available on record. The revisional court has also recorded the reasons for dismissing the revision filed against the above summoning order. I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned summong order as well as the judgment passed by revisional court. I am of the view that this court is not supposed to act as a trial judge in the proceeding U/S 482 Cr.P.C. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry at this stage, specially under the circumstances when the evidence is still 3 incomplete and hazy. The applicant will have an opportunity to place his grievance before the trial court. I do not find any flagrant injustice caused to the applicants at this stage. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim stay order, if any, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB