IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 62 of 2006 Anjali @ Kaki … Applicant Vs State of Uttaranchal & others … Opp. Parties Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the applicant Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought the relief for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 826 of 2004, Mamta Vs Ramesh pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar under Section 323, 504, 506, 452 of I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 – Mamta filed a complaint against the seven persons alleging therein that on 23.07.2004 at about 10:00 p.m. when she had gone to give food to her father-in-law then all the accused persons including the applicant – Anjali @ Kaki have assaulted her and threatened for life. Therefore, she filed a criminal complaint case No. 826 of 2004, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 of I.P.C. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the applicant and other co-accused vide order dated 17.08.2009. On the receipt of summoning order, a protest application against the summoning order was filed by the applicant on the ground that she was minor but the same was dismissed vide order dated 01.02.2005. Hence, the applicant has preferred this petition before this Court. 3. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3 in spite of sufficient service of notice. Therefore, heard Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.S. 2 Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner Anjali @ Kaki was minor and aged about 13 years as per the school certificate but when the application was moved before the trial court, it had never been considered and the trial court passed the impugned order in haste. He has further submitted that the petitioner was juvenile on the date of the incident. The entire trial proceeded against her would vitiate and it shall certainly amounts of abuse of process of court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has made a rival contention that the petitioner in fact did not produce the documents in support of her age before the trial court, therefore, there was no material available before the trial court to come to the conclusion that as to whether the petitioner was minor on the date of the incident or not. 6. Having considered the submission raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, I am of the view that the petitioner in fact did not produce any cogent and authentic evidence before the trial court in order to show that she was minor on the date of incident. I therefore, do not find any abuse of process of court in this case. I am not supposed to act as a trial judge, specially when the evidence is yet to be collected by the trial court and any judgment rendered by me would amount to a premature decision in this case. 7. I therefore, do not find any force in this petition. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 3 8. Accordingly the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 9. The stay order dated 18.01.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. 10. It is however made clear that in case, the petitioner submits the documents showing that she was minor on the date of incident before the trial judge, the trial judge shall firstly investigate this aspect as to whether the petitioner was minor on the date of incident or not and thereafter shall proceed further in order to dispose of the trial. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 18.08.2009 ASWAL