IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 681 of 2005 Vedpal … Applicant Vs State of Uttaranchal & others … Opposite Parties Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, ACJ By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is facing the trial in Criminal Case No. 1493 of 2005, State Vs Vedpal & others, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 469, 471 of I.P.C. pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar has prayed for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant – opposite party No. 3 – Raghuvir Singh moved an application under Section 156(3) before the court below on 05.11.2003 which was dismissed in default on 09.12.2003. Thereafter, another application moved on 26.12.2003 for lodging the complaint against the petitioner as well as other co-accused under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 469, 471 of I.P.C. On the direction of the learned Magistrate, First Information Report was lodged against the applicant along with two other co- accused in the police station concerned, which was registered as Case Crime No. 9 of 2004, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. The police after investigating the matter submitted the chargesheet on 26.05.2005 against the applicant and two other co-accused under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 469, 471 of I.P.C. The case was registered as Criminal Case No. 1403 of 2005, State Vs Ved Pal & others 2 and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar took cognizance against the applicant and other co- accused vide order dated 18.07.2005 under the aforesaid sections. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order, the petitioner has come up before this Court for quashing the aforesaid criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. 4. Heard Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record. 5. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality while passing the summoning order against the applicant. The limitation of the court’s power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which is primarily for one either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. At this stage, I would not embark upon appreciation of evidence. I have gone through the record, the police after investigating the case submitted the chargesheet against the accused persons. The chargehseet, in my opinion, prima facie discloses commission of offences. Although, the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. This Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of the power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of the State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie 3 decision in the case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Any decision to be rendered by this Court would amount to pre-trial of the case. The evidence is yet to be concluded by the trial judge and whatever the defence, the petitioners intend to advance at this stage may adduce before the Trial Judge who shall decide the matter after perusing the entire material available before him on merits. 6. I do not find any ground to interfere in the criminal proceedings which are pending before the Trial Judge at this stage. I also do not find any abuse of process of court in the impugned order as well as in the criminal proceedings which is pending before the Trial Judge. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, ACJ) 22.09.2009 ASWAL