IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 897 OF 2006 Jitendra Prasad ….…..Applicant. Versus State of Uttaranchal and another. ……...Respondents. Present: Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1. Date of Decision : 9.9.2010 Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1. 2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 20.9.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2004 Sri Natthi Singh Tomar Vs. The State of Uttaranchal and another, whereby the revision has been allowed and the order of the trial Court dated 12.7.2004 has been set aside. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint made by the applicants, the trial Court after examining the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. issued summons to the accused vide order dated 12.7.2004. The revisional Court allowed the revision and the order of the trial Court has been set aside. Hence, the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This matter is pending in this Court since 2006. Notices were issued to the respondent, but none appears on behalf of the respondent in the Court today. 4. Perused the order of the revisional Court dated 20.9.2006. The revisional Court while allowing the revision of respondent no. 2 has observed that the trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction by ignoring the provisions of Sections 197 and 199 of Cr.P.C. Prima facie this Court did not find any thing illegal which would call for any interference from this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. All the same, before the matter could be heard at length the counsel for the applicant Sri Lokendra Dobhal made a statement at the bar that he has instructions that the applicant 2 does not want to press the case any further. On this submission, this petition is dismissed as not pressed. 5. No order as to costs. 6. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 9.9.2010 Rathour