IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 67/2005 Dr. Shishupal Yadav .. Petitioner Vs. State of Uttaranchal & another ..Respondents Sri D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the State. None has appeared for respondent No.2. Dated: 18-05-2010 [Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral)] By way of this petition, U/S 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire proceeding of case No. 1699/2004, U/Ss 269/506 I.P.C., State vs. Rajbeer Yadav and another, pending before the C.J.M. Udham Singh Nagar as well as for quashing the charge sheet dated 16-04-2004 submitted in case No. 231/2004, U/Ss 269/506 I.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that the complaint/respondent No.2 lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner at P.S. Rudrapur with the allegations that the petitioner is doing medical practice at the house of Mehendra Sharma at Rudrapur. On 1.1.2004 the complainant was treated by the petitioner upto 18.1.2004. The doctor applied four injections to the complainant due to which one hip of the complainant was damaged. The doctor refused to further treatment to the complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioner has no degree. Therefore action be taken against him. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioner. The C.J.M. also summoned him to face trial U/Ss 269, 506 IPC. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing the charge sheet as well as the summoning order. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Dr. Rajbeer Yadav is the assistant of the petitioner Dr. Shishupal Yadav and now the Dr. Rajbeer Yadav wants to do practice separately, and therefore, on his insistence the false F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant against the petitioner. At this stage I do not find any force in the above submission. The learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order after perusal of charge sheet and entire material collected by the police. I am also of the view that there is no flagrant injustice and abuse of process of court in this case. The evidence is still incomplete and hazy. This court while exercising the jurisdiction U/S 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 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. The applicant shall have an opportunity to place the evidence in his 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 petition, at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim stay, dated 11-2-2005, stands vacated. (B. C. Kandpal, J.) ISB