IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Criminal Misc. Application No.538/2005 Dinesh Kumar Sharma …… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and 2 others .. Respondents Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State. [ Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal,J.(Oral)] By way of this petition, U/S 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing the charge sheet filed by the police against the petitioner, U/Ss 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) SC and ST Act as well as setting aside the cognizance order dated 18-5-2005 passed by C.J.M. Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 1800/2005 State Vs. Dinesh and others. 2- Brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that respondent No.3 filed a written report with the Chairman Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Commission Uttaranchal Dehradun against the petitioner Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Prabhakar Sharma with the allegations that the petitioner and Prabhakar Sharma gave a contract to him for the construction of their building at Haridwar. The complainant completed the work as per the contract agreement. The complainant also did extra work on the directions of the petitioner and Prabhakar Sharma and Rs. 2,24,840/- are outstanding against them. Whenever he went to the petitioner and Prabhakar Sharma they threatened to kill him. The further 2 allegation is that on 3.8.2004 at about 8.00 a.m. when the complainant/respondent No.3 was at his house, the petitioner, Prabhakar Sharma along with one another person came there and entered his house with intention to kill him and they abused him. Accused Dinesh Sharma assaulted him with kicks and fists and another accused Prabhakar Sharma assaulted him with iron rod. They also dragged him out of his house and insulted him at a public place by using filthy language towards his caste and they mentally humiliated him. The police investigated the matter and after finding prima facie case against the accused persons submitted charge sheet U/Ss 452, 504, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) S.C. and S.T. Act. The learned C.J.M. Haridwar on receipt of charge sheet took cognizance against the petitioner and one another persons to face trial U/Ss 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) S.C. and S.T. Act vide impugned order dated 18.5.2005. 3- Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court for quashing the charge sheet as well as the impugned cognizance order. 4- I have heard Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 5- The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dispute is purely of civil nature and the criminal complaint has been lodged only with a view to harass and pressurize the accused persons, therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed. 3 6- I do not find any substance in the above submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of record reveals that the complainant/respondent No.3 has made specific allegations of house-tresspass, assault by accused upon him and using filthy language towards his caste. The police has investigated the matter and after finding prima facie case against the petitioner and one another person, submitted the charge sheet before the learned Magistrate. The summoning order dated 18-5-2005, passed by the learned Magistrate, does not indicate anywhere that any abuse of process of the court has been committed by the court below. The trial court on the basis of the material available on record has rightly summoned the petitioner and one another for facing the trial U/Ss 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) S.C. and S.T. Act. I am not supposed to embark upon an inquiry in order to assess the evidence on record. Any judgment passed by me would render to pre-trial of the case, specially when the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. I do not find any malafide in the complaint filed by the respondent No.3. 7- The petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8- Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 24.8.2005 stands vacated. Dated: 27-07-2010 (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB