Virendra Singh & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 07.07.2012 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 229 of 2012, under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun.

Earlier a complaint, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent No. 2 - Shoorvir Singh Rawat before learned Special Judge, CBI, Dehradun. Thereafter, case was registered as Criminal Case No. 229 of 2012 under the aforesaid sections. Consequently, cognizance was taken by learned Magistrate vide order dated 07.07.2012 against the applicants.

I have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned summoning order passed by learned trial court. It is settled position in law that the Court would interfere with a summoning order or proceedings of a criminal case only in rarest of cases where the offence is not made out or there is gross injustice to the accused-applicant. It is also settled position of law that this Court, while hearing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not sitting as a trial court & this Court cannot take into consideration the plausible defence of the accused during the course of hearing. I am of the view that the factual aspect of this case needs evidence to be adduced by the parties before the court concerned and the trial court after considering the evidence on record will decide the matter in accordance with law. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the accusation of the applicants at this stage, as any judgment rendered by me would amount to pre-trial. Therefore, in view of the above facts as well as the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants, I do not find any abuse of process of court in this case and no flagrant injustice is also going to be caused to the applicants in the case. The contentions, which the learned counsel for the applicants has raised before me, can be raised during defence and evidence may also be led on those aspects.

Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants is dismissed. Interim order dated 11.01.2013 stands vacated.