IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 208 of 2005 Anuj @ Rinku …Applicant Vs State of Uttaranchal (Now Uttarakhand) & another …Respondents Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the appellants Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A., for the State Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2229 of 2003, State Vs Bhupendra Pharasi & others, under Sections 147, 323, 436 of I.P.C. pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.02.2003, a First Information Report was lodged by respondent No. 2 – Sharawan Kumar against the petitioner/applicant alleging therein that on 23.02.2003 at about 11:30 a.m. – Bhupendra Pharasi, Lucky, Vikky, Manmohan Dhyani, Mukesh Khanduri and 8-10 persons came to the town of respondent No. 2 and fired the huts of Kamla, Anil, Mehboob and Anita and he tried to stop the accused persons, Bhupendra Pharasi attacked upon her wife Smt. Sheela Devi with some sharp edged weapon, as a result of which, she became injured. On the basis of which a case crime No. 45(A) of 2003 was registered at police station Dalanwala, District Dehradun against Bhupendra Pharasi and other co-accused persons. After completing the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun against Bhupendra Pharasi and seven other persons (including the name of the petitioner) under Sections 147, 323 and 436 of 2 I.P.C. Thereafter, the Magistrate took cognizance on 16.10.2003 and a Criminal Case No. 2229 of 2003 was registered in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order as well as proceedings initiated against the him, the petitioner preferred this petition before this Court for quashing the aforesaid criminal proceedings. 4. Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the State/respondent and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before the Court that the petitioner has not named in the First Information Report and his name came into picture after submitting the chargesheet. Therefore, the summoning order against the petitioner appears to be abuse of process of Court and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be set aside. 6. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. I am of the view that there is no flagrant injustice and abuse of process of court in this case. The evidences are incomplete and hazy as yet. The points raised by the learned counsel for the applicants are the 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 3 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. 7. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 8. Consequently, the stay order dated 05.09.2005 stands vacated. 17.04.2010 ASWAL (B.C. Kandpal, J.)