IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 47 of 2002 Dharma Pal and others …Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …Respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have sought the relief for setting aside the order dated 21.7.2001 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, in Misc. Case No. 194/2001, Lalit Kumar vs. Dharam Pal and others as well as order dated 16.3.2002 passed in Revision No. 709/2001. 2- Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioners. The case was investigated by the police and final report was filed. The learned Magistrate on the basis of protest petition; statements of witnesses recorded during trial and affidavits filed in support thereof rejected the final report submitted by the police and summoned the petitioners under Sections 190(b) of Cr.P.C. to face trial under Sections 452, 323, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. vide order dated 21.7.2001. Against the said order, the petitioners have filed revision petition before Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Roorkee, Haridwar and the same was dismissed vide order dated 16.3.2002. 3- Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned orders, the petitioners have preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 4- Heard Sri B.D. Pande, Advocate holding brief of Sri H.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1 and perused the record. 5- The trial court while summoning the petitioners/accused persons vide order dated 21.7.2001 has categorically observed that from perusal of the case diary it appears that complainant-informant corroborated the alleged incident in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The questions which were put to the complainant by the investigating officer were properly explained by the complainant. Thus, witnesses namely Sunil Kumar Tyagi, Munna, Hanif, Dinesh Kumar and Naresh Kumar have been examined by the prosecution in support of the alleged incident. I am of the view that the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to summon the petitioners after taking cognizance under Section 190(b) of the Cr.P.C., therefore, no abuse of process of court is committed by the leaned Magistrate while summoning the applicants as accused. 6- Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1105 of 2001, Mohammed Yusuf & others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (decided on 07.08.2007). I have gone through the judgment cited by learned counsel for the applicants and I am of the view that the facts and circumstances of the above cited case are entirely different and do not apply in the present case. 7- In proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry so as to know the authenticity of the entire prosecution case when the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. The petitioners will have an opportunity to defend themselves before the trial court. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 8- The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9- Accordingly, petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Stay order dated 4.4.2002 stands vacated. 10- However, in case, if the petitioners appear before the court concerned in order to seek their bail, the trial judge dealing with the bail application shall dispose of the same as early as possible without causing any unreasonable delay. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 27-03-2010 SP