IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 160 of 2010 Sarita Sharma W/o Sanjay Vishwakarma D/o Late Sri Jagannath Sharma Presently R/o House No. 3/684 Jananagar, Badshahi Masjid wali Gali, P.S. Janakpuri District Saharanpur. …………..Petitioner. Versus Sanjay Vishwakarma S/o Sri Ghasitaram R/o Shyam Nagar District Gangnahr, Roorkee Haridwar ……………Respondent. Shri M.S. Tyagi, Advoate, for the petitioner. Shri Manish Arora, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 3397 of 2009, Sanjay Vishwakarma Vs. Sarita Sharma and others, relating to offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner got married to respondent on 27.05.2005. At the time of marriage, both the parties, had lost their earlier spouses, and had their own children from their earlier spouses. Unfortunately, this matrimony too could not go well and the relation between the two soured. It appears that the petitioner (wife) had already filed number of cases against the respondent, including the one, moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C., under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and one under Section 494 I.P.C. The present respondent (husband) has filed the impugned criminal complaint with the allegations that on 05.11.2009, the petitioner (wife) came to his office and insulted him and threatened him in the presence of his colleagues. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned criminal complaint is false and counter blast to the criminal cases, filed by the wife. Whether the petitioner is innocent or not, and whether the allegations are false or not, cannot be examined by this Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The trial court after recording statements of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of two witnesses, under Section 202 Cr.P.C., summoned only the petitioner and not the other two accused. 5. Having considered submissions 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. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned, her bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt: 09.04.2010 Sweta