IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Application No. 1576 of 2007 AND Recall Application No. 638 of 2007 IN Criminal Misc. Application No. 92 of 2006 Prem Singh … Applicant Vs State of Uttaranchal & others … Opposite Parties Sri Lokendra Dobhal, 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. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the delay condonation application and perused the affidavit filed in support thereto. 2. I find sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the recall application. 3. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the recall application is hereby condoned. 4. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner is ready to argue the case on merit, therefore, I recall the order dated 05.08.2006 thereby dismissing the petition under Chapter 12 Rule 4 of the High Court Rules. 5. Accordingly, recall application is allowed. Let the petition be restored to its original number. 2 6. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant, who is facing the trial arising out of Case Crime No. 157 of 2005, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C. for setting aside the condition imposed by the learned Session Judge in bail order dated 24.11.2005. 7. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 3 moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun under the aforesaid sections against the applicant. The petitioner was summoned by the court concerned to face the trial and thereafter he sought the bail from the court concerned. 8. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings, on the ground that the matter is purely of civil nature and the F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party No. 3 is only to harass the petitioner and to drag him in an unnecessary criminal litigation. Thus, it is an abuse of process of Court. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at great length, I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised by this Court only to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the end of justice and this power is not to be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. I refrain myself from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been produced before the court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective 3 without sufficient material. The applicant will have an opportunity before the trial Judge to put forth his defence. I do not find any merit in this case at this stage. I do not find any special feature in this case to say that it is not expedient and not in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. 10. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 26.08.2009 ASWAL