IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 175 of 2005 Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh & others … Applicants Vs State of Uttaranchal & others … Opposite Parties Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants/petitioners for setting aside the summoning order dated 18.04.2001 in Case Crime No. 73 of 2001, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 3 – Mohan Lal lodged the report against the applicants on 05.03.2001 at police station Jawalapur, District Haridwar, which was registered as Case Crime No. 73 of 2001, under Sections 49-A, 323, 506 of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act alleging therein that his daughter was married with applicant No. 1 – Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh on 23.02.1999 and thereafter, they committed cruelty upon her for bringing more dowry. On the basis of the report, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar took cognizance and summoned the applicants on 18.04.2001. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicants have preferred this petition for quashing the summoning order passed by the trial court. 2 4. Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted before the Court that the applicants were falsely implicated in the case. He has invited my attention towards annexure No. 2, which is a medical report of Smt. Anupama and submitted that the injuries received by her are simple in nature. He has also submitted that the applicants except applicant No. 1, lived separately. Therefore, the summoning order passed against the applicants are irrelevant, as the complaint case against the applicants is not made out and it amounts to abuse of process of court. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party has made a rival contention and has submitted that the trial court has not committed any error while passing the summoning order. He has further submitted that the applicants have not stated any where in the petition, which may shows that they are living separately at some other place. 7. After having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents available before me, I am of the view that there is no flagrant injustice and abuse of process of court in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not shown anything, which shows that the applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are living separately. The points raised by the learned counsel for the applicants are the disputed question of facts and it can be judged by the trial court where the evidence are yet to be collected. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under 3 Section 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 where the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. The applicants shall have an opportunity to place the evidence in their 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 case at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 9. Consequently, the stay order dated 30.03.2005 stands vacated. 17.05.2010 ASWAL (B.C. Kandpal, J.)