IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 334 of 2004 Smt. Saroj Bala & others … Applicants Vs State of Uttaranchal & others … Respondents Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the applicants Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.(Oral) By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners, who are facing the trial in Criminal Case No. 1013 of 2003, Badlu Giri Vs Harpal, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C. pending in the court of 1st Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Roorkee, District Haridwar have prayed for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. 2. Heard Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that one Smt. Santoshi Giri (petitioner No. 4) was married with Mr. Ravinder Giri who was the son of respondent No. 3 – Badlu Giri. After the marriage, she was put to harassment by her husband and by other in-laws, therefore, she had to file a complaint against the family members of respondent No. 3 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of I.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Alligarh. Santoshi Giri W/o Ravinder Giri moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the son of respondent No. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent instead of facing the trial in the court 2 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of I.P.C. have lodged the complaint against the petitioners as a counterblast. It has also submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are vague and no offence is in fact made out against the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary has submitted that the averments made in the complaint itself make out the prima facie case for the offences alleged therein against the petitioners. 5. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the complainant in support of the complaint has also filed the copy of the medical examination report, which indicates that first incisor tooth of right upper jaw was missing and the blood was oozing out from the injury. The other injuries were found on the upper lip as well as contusion were also found on the left arm and left back. The doctor opined that injury No. 1 indicating the missing of 1st incisor tooth from the right upper jaw is grievous in nature. Keeping in view the nature of the injury sustained by Badlu Giri who is the respondent No. 3 in the present petition, I am of the view that prima facie case for the offences alleged in the complaint is made out at this stage and the Trial Judge has not committed any error in passing the summoning order. Although, the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. This Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of the power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of the State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in the case 3 where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Any decision to be rendered by this Court would amount to pre-trial of the case. The evidence is yet to be concluded by the trial judge and whatever the defence, the petitioners intend to advance at this stage may adduce before the Trial Judge who shall decide the matter after perusing the entire material available before him on merits. 6. I do not find any ground to interfere in the criminal proceedings which are pending before the Trial Judge at this stage. I also do not find any abuse of process of court in the impugned order as well as in the criminal proceedings which is pending before the Trial Judge. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 06.08.2009 ASWAL