IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. WPMS 4922/2001 Old No. 137 of 1998 Smt. Shanta Devi and 12 others … Petitioners. Vs. The District & Sessions Judge New Tehri and 2 others .. Respondents. AND WPMS 4921/2001 Betal Singh and 4 others … Petitioners. Vs. The District & Sessions Judge, New Tehri and 2 others … Respondents. Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, holding brief of Mr. R. Dobhal, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Dated: 9-6-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arise out of the same judgments and orders dated 26-4-1996 ad 3-12-1997, passed by C.J.M. Tehri Garhwal and the District & Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal respectively, therefore, both the petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 2- The facts of the case are that respondent No.3 Ghurku lodged a complaint against the petitioners U/Ss 504, 506, 323, 354 I.P.C. and 3/10 of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act. The C.J.M. Tehri, recorded statement of the complainant U/S 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his witnesses U/S 202 Cr.P.C. and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material on record, took cognizance against the petitioners to face trial U/Ss 504, 506, 323, 354 I.P.C and section 3/10 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, vide order dated 24-6-1996 passed in Crl. Case No. 494/1996. The petitioners field revision against the above summoning order and the said revision was dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal vide order dated 3.12.1997 passed in Crl. Revision No. 12 of 1996. 3- The petitioners have preferred the present petitions for quashing of the aforesaid judgment and orders. 4- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 5- Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that false complaint has been lodged against the petitioners and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in a cursory manner has passed the summoning order. He also submitted that the learned Revisional Court also did not consider the material on record in right perspective and illegally dismissed the revision. 6- The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.3 opposed the submission of the counsel for the petitioners and argued that the complainant has adduced evidence before the learned Magistrate and Magistrate after considering the material on record found prima facie case against the accused/petitioners and passed the summoning order. The revision preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed. He urged that the petitioners will have full opportunity to raise their grievance before the trial court and the proceedings of the criminal case cannot be quashed at this preliminary stage where the evidence is yet to come. 7- After having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, I do not find any substance in the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perusal of record reveals that the complainant firstly lodged complaint before the District Magistrate, and direction was issued to submit report but the Inspector of concerning Police Station did not take any action. Thereafter, he filed complaint before the C.J.M. Tehri Garhwal. The learned Magistrate recorded his statement U/S 200 Cr.P.C. and Smt. Pingala Devi, Smt. Sushila Devi and Km. Asha were also examined U/S 202 Cr.P.C. the witnesses have deposed about the incident. The learned Magistrate after finding a prima facie case U/Ss 504,506, 323, 354 I.P.C. and Section 3/10 Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Act, took cognizance in the matter. The evidence in the matter is still hazy and incomplete and scrutiny of the evidence would amount to pretrial of the case, I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the impugned judgments. Detailed order has been passed by the learned Magistrate giving reasons for his satisfaction. It is open for the petitioners to raise all the points before the trial court at the stage of framing of charges. I do not find any substance in the present petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 8- Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below are confirmed. 9- The interim stay, if any, shall stand vacated. 10- Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of WPMS 4922/2001. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB