IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 607 of 2005 1. Harpal S/o Chohal 2. Kallu S/o Harpal Both R/o Village Khedajat P.S. Manglaur District Haridwar … Applicants Vs 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. IInd Upper Civil Judge (J.D.) Haridwar District Haridwar 3. Smt. Geeta W/o Vijay Kumar D/o Late Roop Ram R/o Village Anaki P.S. Ranipur District Haridwar … Respondents Sri Manish Arora, Advocate, present for the petitioners Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioners have sought quashing summoning order dated 29.06.2005 as well as proceedings of Complaint Case no. 39 of 2005, Smt. Geeta Vs Vijay Kumar & others, relating to offence punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar pending in the court of IInd Upper Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No. 3 – Smt. Geeta filed a complaint against the applicants on 28.02.2005 alleging therein that the applicant No. 1, is the father-in-law and applicant No. 2 is brother-in-law of respondent No. 3, they have come to the house of her father and assaulted her and also threatened her. After recording the statement under Sections 200 and 2 202 Cr.P.C., the trial court summoned the applicants under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 of I.P.C. vide order dated 29.06.2005. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred this petition for quashing the proceedings under the aforesaid case. 4. Heard Sri Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before the Court that the incident took place on 19.01.2005, but the complaint in this regard had been lodged on 28.02.2005. Therefore, the complaint lodged against the applicant is highly belated one. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the papers and records, this court is of the view that in the present case there are disputed questions of fact involve which can not be examined by this court in its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Merely, for the reason that the First Information Report is a lodged at belated stage, that cannot be a ground for interference by this court in its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. The points raised in the petition 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 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 3 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. 7. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 8. Consequently, the stay order dated 05.10.2005 stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 09.07.2010 ASWAL