IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Criminal Misc. Application No.222 of 2003 1- Beer Singh Negi, S/o Late Inder Singh, 2- Smt. Kiri Devi @ Ludri Devi, W/o Beer Singh Negi, 3- Balbir Singh S/o Late Inder Singh, All R/o Rajeev Nagar, Ganga Vihar, P.S. Dalanwala, District Dehradun. 4- Surendra Singh Sajwan S/o Dashrath Singh Sajwan, R/o 54, Awas Vikas Colony, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 5- Smt. Vimla W/o Ghanshyam R/o Mangal Basti, Rajeev Nagar, District Dehradun --- Petitioners. Vs. 1- State of Uttaranchal 2- Rajesh Singh Chauhan (Advocate) S/o Late Prem Singh Chauhan, R/o Danda Ajabpur, Dehradun District Dehradun --- Respondents. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioners. Learned A.G.A. for the State. Dated: 08-1-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition, U/S 482 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioners have sought the relief to quash the summoning order dated 30-7-2003, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 2046 of 2003, Rajesh Singh Chauhan Vs. Beer Singh Negi and others U/Ss 147, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. pending in the Court of Ist Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2- Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that applicant No.1 purchased some land from one Keshav Ram through sale deed which was registered on 19-8- 1981. Some dispute arose between applicant No.1 and father of respondent No.2 pertaining to some passage of land and applicant No.1 filed suit No. 354 of 1999 before Civil Judge (J.D.) Dehradun against Prem Singh Chauhan (father of respondent No.2). The respondent, No.2 who is an Advocate wanted to pressurize the applicant No.1 to withdraw the suit and the applicant was compelled to make a complaint against respondent No.2 before President Bar Association Dehradun. An F.I.R. was also lodged against the respondent No.2 U/Ss 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and case crime No. 330 of 2002 was registered against him. Thereafter the respondent No.2 was bearing a grudge with the applicant No.1 and his family members and therefore he filed an application U/S 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. against them before C.J.M. Dehradun. The learned Magistrate directed the police to investigate the matter. The police submitted the report that the respondent No.2 has filed the false complaint just to pressurize the applicant. After receiving the above report of the police the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant/respondent No.2 U/S 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses Manmohan Singh and Gambhir Singh U/S 202 Cr.P.C. and summoned the applicants vide order dated 30-7-2003 to face trial U/Ss 147, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged the summoning order on the ground that the false and frivolous complaint has been filed. The police after investigation submitted report before the learned Magistrate that no incident has occurred and in order to pressurize the petitioners false complaint has been filed, but the learned Magistrate has illegally summoned them after taking statements of the complainant and his witnesses. There has been abuse of process of Court and the summoning order is liable to be set aside. 3- Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 4- Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that litigation is pending between the parties pertaining to some land and in order to pressurize the petitioners to withdraw the litigation, the respondent No.2 has filed the false and frivolous complaint. The learned Magistrate has illegally believed the evidence recorded at the stage of taking cognizance and has committed error in summong the petitioners while the police had investigated the matter earlier and submitted the report that no incident had occurred on the complaint filed by the respondent No.2. 5- On the other hand learned A.G.A. has contended that the petitioners have committed the offences as alleged by the complainant in the complaint as well as in the statements recocrded U/S 200 Cr.P.C. The allegation made in the complaint have been supported by the witnesses examined U/S 202 Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in summoning the petitioners to face the trial. 6- After having considered the submission raised by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the material on record, I find that no abuse of process of Court is there in the instant case. Although there is litigation pending between the parties but the complainant has made specific allegations against the petitioners about the incident of assault committed on him by the petitioners. The allegations have fully been supported by the witnesses examined U/S 202 Cr.P.C. I have also perused the impugned summoning order and find that the learned Magistrate has recorded the reasons of his satisfaction that prima facie case U/Ss 147, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. is made out against the accused/petitioners. I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction U/S 482 Cr.P.C. can not embark upon an inquiry about the reliability of the allegations made against the petitioners. This Court has not to separate the grain from the chaff in the proceedings like this, because that will amount pre-trial of the case. This is the job of trial Court. The trial Court after adducing the evidence by the parties will be able to ajudge the correctness of the allegations. I do not find any ground to interfere with the summoning order. 7- For the above reasons the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8- Accordingly the petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 30-9-2003 stands vacated. 9- However, in case if the petitioners appear before the trial court and move their bail application, the trial court is directed to dispose of their bail application expeditiously, without causing any unreasonable delay. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB