Court No. 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 528 of 2006 1- Manoj Mathpal s/o Sh. Kushal Singh 2- Kushal Singh s/o Sri Baldev Singh 3- Ms. Sita Devi s/o Kushal Singh 4- Ms. Vimmi D/o Kushal Singh All residents of Sugar Mill, Dhampur, District Bijnor U.P. …Applicants Vs. 1. State of Uttaranchal, 2. Mr. Anupama w/o Manoj Mathpal D/o Pratap Chand Sheel R/o Village Jagannath Pur P. S. Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar .… Respondents Sri Gopal K. Verma, Advocate, for the applicants. Learned A.G.A. for respondent no.1. Sri G. C. Lakhchaura, Advocate, for respondent no. 2. Dated: February 18, 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 proceedings of criminal case no. 326 of 2006 Anupama vs. Manoj Mathpal & others, under Section 498-A/323/504/506 I.P.C. and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) before the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar praying for registration of F.I.R. against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate directed the police concerned to register the case against the applicants and police registered the case against the applicants under Section 498A/323/504/506 of I.P.C. and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, police submitted final report in favour of petitioners. Against this, the complainant approached S.S.P. Udham Singh Nagar, who transferred the matter to police of Kashipur for re-investigation of the matter. The police again submitted final report in the case. On the report submitted by the police, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the complainant, who filed protest petition against the final report submitted before the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate passed an order treating the protest application as complaint case and directed to record statement of the complainant u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. After finding prima facie case made out against the petitioners, learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners and summoned them vide order dated 11.5.2006. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed this petition before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the parties 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. I am not supposed to embark upon enquiry with regard to the credibility of the evidence which is yet to be adduced before the trial court during the course of trial. Any judgment rendered by me at this stage would amount to a pre-trial as the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. 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. However, in case, if the petitioners appear before the court concerned for obtaining their bail, their bail applications shall be disposed of expeditiously and without causing any unreasonable delay. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP