IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 351 of 2004 Manmohan Sharma and others … Petitioners Versus State & others …Respondents With Criminal Misc. Application No. 355 of 2004 Ishwar Dutt Sharma & others … Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …Respondents Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioners Sri S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. for the State Sri B.N. Molakhi, Advocate for the complainant Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both Criminal Misc. Applications arise out of the same judgment and order dated 1.5.2004 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Dehradun, hence they are being decided by the common judgment and order. 2- By way of these petitions, preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have sought the relief for setting aside the order dated 1.5.2004 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Dehradun. They have further sought the relief for quashing the charge sheet dated 25.2.2004 as well as entire proceedings of the case. 3- Brief facts of the case are that complainant- opposite party no. 2 Satendra Kumar Sharma lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioners under Section 147,148,308,336,452,427,506 I.P.C., which was registered as Case Crime No. 14 of 2004 at P.S. 2 Raipur, Dehradun on 11.2.2004. The statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The investigating officer after completing investigation found prima facie case against the petitioners and submitted charge sheets against them. The trial court being satisfied with the material collected by the police during investigation took cognizance against the accused/petitioners and summoned them vide order dated 1.5.2004. 4- Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 5- Heard Sri Pankaj Miglani learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri B.N. Molakhi, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record. 6- Having considered the material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any force in these petitions. The police had thoroughly investigated the matter and collected evidence, thereafter finding prima facie case against the accused/petitioners submitted charge sheets in the respective cases. The learned Magistrate relying upon the material collected during investigation has taken cognizance against the petitioners under different Sections of the offences. As far as allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioners are concerned, this Court is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to appreciation of the evidence at this stage. The evidence is yet to be collected 3 before the trial judge and it would be appropriate for the trial judge to decide the matter after appreciation of the evidence to be adduced before it. Any judgment rendered by this Court would amount to premature trial. I do not find any abuse of process of court and flagrant miscarriage of justice in this case. 7- The petitions lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. 8- Accordingly, these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are dismissed. Stay orders, if any, stand vacated. 9- However, in case, if the petitioners move bail applications before the court concerned, the same shall be disposed of by the court concerned expeditiously and without causing any unreasonable delay. 10- Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of C482 No. 355 of 2004. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 27-03-2010 SP