IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL, AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 642 of 2006 Arvind Kumar @ Pappu S/o Sri Jai Prakash Sharma Aged about 34 years R/o Village Jagjitpur P.S. Kankhal District Haridwar …..Applicant Vs State of Uttaranchal through S.H.O. Police Station, Kankhal District Haridwar …..Respondent Sri Nanak Chand Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned A.G.A. for the State Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 156 of 1993 State Vs Arvind Kumar under Section 25 Arms pending in the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner had filed a revision No. 469 of 2001 which was dismissed by this Court on 18.07.2006. Consequently, the stay order dated 13.09.1993 granted by this Court in the aforesaid revision was not in force, therefore, the court below framed the charges in sessions trial No. 156 of 2003 State Vs Arvind Kumar under Section 25 Arms Act. Connected Sessions Trial No. 211/1992 State Vs. Rajesh U/S 302/34 I.P.C. was tried by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar and the accused/petitioner has been acquitted by the trial court. Now the petitioner has filed this petition with a prayer to quash the proceedings U/S 25 Arms Act against him on the basis of his acquittal in the sessions trial, pending before the trial court. 3. Heard Sri Nanak Chand Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. Since, it is a disputed question of facts involved in the case and the petitioner has full liberty to adduce the evidence in support of his case before the trial judge, hence I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility of the evidence at this stage. Any judgment rendered by me would amount to premature judgment especially under the circumstance that the evidence is still to be adduced before the trial judge and it is the trial judge who has to adjudicate the matter on the basis of the evidence filed before it. 5. I do not find any abuse of process of court at this stage. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 07-08-2006 ASWAL