IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 488 of 2005 Narayani Devi …Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …Respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought the relief for quashing the order dated 13.4.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag in Criminal Case No. 285/2004 Smt. Subhaga Devi vs. Mahaveer Singh and others as well as the order dated 15.7.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Criminal Revision No. 06/2005 Smt. Narayani Devi vs. State of Uttaranchal. Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent no. 2, after two witnesses, namely, PW-1 and PW-2 had been examined. By order dated 13.4.2005, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag allowed the said application and summoned the applicant and Dharamveer to face the trial. Against the order dated 13.4.2005, the applicant has preferred criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag and the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.7.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the said impugned orders, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 2 Heard Sri Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1, Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. The petitioner Smt. Narayani Devi and one Dharamveer have been summoned by the learned Magistrate at the stage of recording evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate is fully empowered to summon the accused at the stage of recording evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. The witnesses have named the petitioner and his colleague Dharamveer as accused in the commission of the crime, therefore, no abuse of process of court is committed by the Magistrate while summoning the petitioner and Dharamveer as accused. In a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry so as to know the authenticity of the entire prosecution case when the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. The petitioner will have an opportunity to defend herself before the trial court. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the courts below. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. The stay order dated 02.08.2005 stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 27-03-2010 SP 3