Court No. 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 299 of 2004 1- Ram Kishore s/o Harkesh 2- Sahas Ram s/o Mukkha 3- Ram Pal s/o Mukkha 4- Liyaqat s/o Mohd. Yameen 5- Abid s/o Mohd. Yameen All r/o Village Naseerpur Kalan, Police Station Patheri District Haridwar …Applicants Vs. 1- State of Uttaranchal 2- Surta s/o Tota R/o Village Naseerpur Kalan, Police Station Kalan, Police Station Patheri, District Haridwar ……… Respondents Sri Rajendra Singh, Advocate, for the applicants. Learned A.G.A. for respondent no.1. Dated: February 13, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioners have sought the relief for quashing the impugned order dated 13.5.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, District Haridwar in Criminal Complaint Case No. 431 of 2004, Surta vs. Ram Kishore and others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 420, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 323, 504, 506, 392 of I.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 filed a criminal complaint case in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, against the petitioners under Sections 147, 148, 149, 420, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 323, 504, 506, 392 of I.P.C. The learned Magistrate recorded statement of complaint and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. After finding prima facie case made out against the petitioners, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons to the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 420, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 323, 504, 506, 392 of I.P.C., vide order dated 13.5.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court. Heard Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1 and perused the record. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents filed before me, I am of the view that there is no flagrant injustice and abuse of process of court in this case. I do not find any mistake in the impugned order passed by the Magistrate concerned. The points raised by learned counsel for the petitioners are the disputed questions of fact and the same require scrutiny by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact there is no material available for the offences against the petitioners under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, of I.P.C. and the petitioners, without having any prima facie case against them, have been summoned by the court below. I am not supposed to interfere in this controversy at this stage because any judgment to be rendered by me at this stage would amount to a pre-trial as the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. However, opportunity to the petitioners would be available at the stage of framing the charges before the trial court and the petitioners may raise this submission before the court below at the time of framing the charges. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Stay order, if any, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP