IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Criminal Misc. Application No. 531/2005 Umesh Gupta and another …… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttaranchal and 2 others .. Respondents Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State. [ Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal,J.(Oral)] By way of this petition, U/S 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 27.4.2005, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, in Complaint Case No. 669/2005, Maneri Vs. Umesh Gupta and others U/Ss 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. 2- Brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that respondent No.3 filed a criminal complaint before Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, against the petitioners and four others with the allegations that a case is pending between her and the petitioners, in which 15.2.2005 was fixed in the court. On that date the petitioners and the four other persons mentioned in the complaint had also come to Roorkee Court and a talk of decision of the case between the parties was going on. Suddenly Wazid and Saeed started abusing the complainant and all the accused persons assaulted her with kicks and fists. They also threatened to kill her and her children if she did not come to terms of deciding the case. The complainant handed over a written complaint of the incident of marpit and threats extended to her by the accused persons at P.S. Kotwali Roorkee on the day of incident 2 itself, but the police did not take any action in the matter. She thereafter sent written complaint to D.G. Police Dehradun as well as D.M. Haridwar and S.D.M. Roorkee on 21.2.2005, but this time also no action was taken by the concerned police, hence she filed the complaint case before the Judicial Magistrate Roorkee. The learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant U/S 200 Cr.P.C. and he also took the statements of her witnesses Abdul and Sazid U/S 202 Cr.P.C. and after finding a prima facie case against the accused persons summoned them to face trial U/Ss 147, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. vide impugned order dated 27.4.2005. 3- Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this petition before this Court for quashing the cognizance order as well as the entire proceeding pending against them. 4- I have heard Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 5- The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that litigation is going on between the complainant and the petitioners and in order to exert pressure upon the petitioners the complainant has filed a false complaint against them and some other persons. He also submitted that the proceeding of the case against the petitioners is abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed. 6- I do not find any substance in the above submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 3 Perusal of record reveals that the complainant/respondent No.3 has made specific allegations of abuse and assault by the accused persons upon her. She has also filed documentary evidence pertaining to lodging the written complaint at the police station as well as to police authorities and when no action was taken by the police, she was compelled to lodge a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Roorkee. The learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant U/S 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of her witnesses Abdul Gaphoor and Sazid U/S 202 Cr.P.C. Both the witnesses have supported the allegations of the complainant pertaining to the incident of marpit, abuse and threats given to her by the accused persons. Thereafter the learned Magistrate after being satisfied passed the summoning order against the petitioners and some other others to face trial U/Ss 147 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. I do not find any malafide in the complaint filed by the respondent No.3. I am not supposed to embark upon an inquiry in order to assess the evidence on record. Any judgment passed by me would render to pre-trial of the case, specially when the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. 7- The petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8- Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 08-09-2005 stands vacated. Dated: 27-07-2010 (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB