IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 70 of 2005 Dharampal & others … Applicants Vs State of Uttaranchal & another … Opposite Parties Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicants Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants/petitioners for setting aside the orders dated 09.09.2004 and 04.01.2005 passed by the courts below and further staying the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 138 of 2003, Surendra Vs Dharam Pal & others, under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Haridwar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 – Surendra filed a complaint case against the applicants/petitioners alleging therein that his son Monu aged about 5 years and son of accused – Dharampal are studying in a school. On 12.03.2003, when they were returning to their home from the school, they had fight with each other. At that time, Dharampal also beaten to Monu in presence of witnesses Chatarpal, Hukam and Mukesh Pal & others. On the basis of the complaint a case was registered against the applicants and thereafter, the learned Magistrate issued summoning order through warrants against the applicants on 09.09.2004. Against the said summoning order, the applicants filed a criminal revision No. 337 of 2004, Dharampal & others Vs Surendra & others, before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was partly allowed vide order dated 04.01.2005. The learned Additional Sessions 2 Judge while deciding the revision directed the parties to appear before the trial court on 09.09.2004. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the applicants have preferred this petition for quashing the orders passed by the courts below as well as entire criminal proceedings under the aforesaid case. 4. Heard Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted before the Court that there is no case is made out against the applicants and the summoning order passed against them are irrelevant, as the complaint case against the applicants is not made out and it amounts to abuse of process of court. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the applicants is liable to be quashed. 6. Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State has made a rival contention and has submitted that the trial court has not committed any error and if the petitioners have any grievance, they must submitted the same before the trial court. 7. After having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents available before me, I am of the view that there is no flagrant injustice and abuse of process of court in this case. The applicants instead of appearing before the trial court preferred this petition before this Court. The points raised by the learned counsel for the applicants are the 3 disputed question of facts and it can be judged by the trial court where the evidence are yet to be collected. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not supposed to act as a trial judge. The averments made in the petition are the disputed question of fact, which can be assessed and judged by the trial court. 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 where the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. The applicants shall have an opportunity to place the evidence in their defence before the trial court where the matter shall be finally adjudicated after considering the entire evidence. I do not find any merit in this case at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 9. Consequently, the stay order dated 14.02.2005 stands vacated. 17.05.2010 ASWAL (B.C. Kandpal, J.)