IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO 119 of 2004 Reserved on:7.4.2008 Date of decision: 28.04.2008 Smt. Shakuntla Devi & others. Petitioners. Versus Shri Kulwinder Singh Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioners: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J This Judgment shall dispose of the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings initiated against them before the learned C.J.M.Kangra at Dharamshala. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent filed a complaint as against the petitioners. The learned trial Court recorded the statements of the complaint and four other witnesses and after recording their evidence, vide order dated 23.7.2004, the petitioners were summoned under Sections 323,425,506/34 IPC. Being aggrieved by the order summoning the petitioners as an accused they have preferred this petition before this Court for quashing of the proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a different occurrence had taken place for which a complaint was lodged as against the respondent, and as a counter blast, this false case was filed as against the petitioners. In regard to the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the learned counsel for the petitioners had relied upon the following authority of the Apex Court reported in Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. Prasanna Kumar and others, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 494. The following observations made therein are relevant and are being reproduced hereunder: “ The High Court in the instant case is clearly in error in assessing the material before it and concluding that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. It was in evidence that there are specific allegations in the complaint disclosing the ingredients of the offence taken cognizance of. It is for the complainant to substantiate the allegations by evidence at a later stage. In the absence of circumstances to hold prima facie that the complaint is frivolous when the complaint does disclose the commission of an offence there is no justification for the High Court to interfere.” This decision rather shows that in case there is some evidence on record, the High Court should not interfere in the order passed summoning the accused persons. Before this Court, the petitioner has also filed one copy of FIR, another copy of complaint and a copy of Rapat lodged and on the strength of these documents, it was sought to be argued that the proceedings before the learned trial Court deserve to be quashed. These documents 3 cannot be considered by this Court at this stage and in case the petitioners felt necessary they should have applied before the learned trial Court at the stage of framing of charge or at any other stage as permitted by law but these documents cannot be considered by this Court to form any opinion in regard to the merits of the case. A perusal of the record of the case shows that the learned trial Court considered the statements of the complainant and four other witnesses examined by it and on the basis of the evidence, it passed the order summoning the petitioners which order, therefore, cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality to hold that these proceedings should be quashed. The evidence led was sufficient or not for framing of the charge has to be considered by the trial Court when the stage comes but suffice to say that these proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. Once there was evidence against the petitioners on the basis of which the trial Court had passed an order summoning the petitioners, no case is made out before this Court for invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioners which is accordingly dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 26.5.2008 and the learned trial Court shall take steps to dispose of the case at an early date, being an old case. 28th April, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (SDS)