IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Misc. (Restoration) Appn. No. 112 / 2010 Delay Condonation Appn. No. 210 / 2010 In Crl. Misc. Application No. 864 of 2008 1. Mohd. Mobin Khan s/o Israil 2. Fatima W/o Israil 3. Sahuni W/o Mohd. Mobin Khan 4. Sabeela D/o Mallu All are R/o Mohalla Barka Kali Muddin, Tehsil and District Mewat (Haryana) 5. Dr. Ikbal S/o Abdul Shakur R/o Village Keshka Tehsil and District Mewat (Haryana) 6. Saleem S/o Shamsu R/o Village Chaeessa Tehsil and District Mewat (Haryana) ...…………. Petitioners / applicants Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. Shama Parveen W/o Mohd. Mobin Khan D/o Late Asi Dulla Khan Presently R/o Bhikiyasain, 2 Tehsil Bhikiyasain, District Almora. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Vinod Tiwari and Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioners / applicants. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for respondent No. 1. Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is Delay Condonation Application No. 210 of 2010, for condonation of delay in filing the Restoration Application MCRC No. 112 of 2010, for restoration for Criminal Misc. Application No. 864 of 2008, which was dismissed for non prosecution on 24.12.2009. Perused the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application. The delay condonation application is allowed. Delay is condoned. 2) Also, heard on Misc. Restoration Application MCRC No. 112 of 2010, and perused the affidavit. 3) If view of the principle of law laid down in Madhumilan Syntex Limited and others Vs. Union of India and another, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 1971, the restoration application is allowed, on the condition that the parties shall argue the case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, today itself. 3 4) The application is allowed on above condition, and Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 864 of 2008, is restored to its original number. 5) Heard on the petition (No. 864 of 2008) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.). 6) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have challenged the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 908 of 2008; State Vs. Mobin Khan and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 323, 504, 506, 498-A of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, police station Almora, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora. 7) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that cause of action in the matter has arisen in the State of Haryana, and the court at Almora has no jurisdiction to try the case. Perusal of the first information report and other papers on record show that a part of cause of action has arisen in Haryana, but part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of District of Almora. 8) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is no inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. The factual disputes relating to the innocence of the 4 petitioners can be examined by the trial court, after recording evidence. 9) With the above observation, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners, namely Mohd. Mobin Khan, Fatima, Sahuni, Sabeela, Dr. Ikbal and Saleem surrender before the court concerned, and move application for bail, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 19, 2010. H. Negi 5