HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application C-482 No. 31 of 2010 Zunaid and others. … Applicants. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another … Respondents Sri J.S. Virk and Sri B.D. Pandey, Advocates for the applicants, Sri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1, Sri Bipin Mohan Pingal, Advocate for respondent no.3. Dated: January 13, 2010: Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. IA No. 140/2010 (Urgency Application) Sri J.S. Virk, Advocate and Sri B.D. Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Prabhakar Joshi, the learned Brief Holder for the State/ respondent no.1. Sri Bipin Mohan Pingal, the learned counsel for respondent no.2. Heard. The urgency application is allowed. C482 no. 31/2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for setting- aside the summoning order dated 01.07.1997 passed by I A.C.J.M., Roorkee, District Haridwar in Misc. Case no. 70 of 1997 (New No. 856 of 2001) Akbar vs. Zubair and others under Section 395, 397 I.P.C. in case crime no. 154B of 1996, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar and the order dated 18.04.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision no. 264 of 1997 Zubair and others vs. State and others. This is the second Criminal Misc. Application. The first Criminal Misc. Application no. 953 of 2009 has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2009. 2 During the course of arguments learned counsel for the applicants referred to the paras-19 and 21 of the instant criminal misc. application and stated that the complainant does not intend to proceed with the case and in this regard the complainant also moved application before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar that he does not want to press his application filed against the bail order of the applicants. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that as the parties have entered into a compromise out side the Court, he does not intend to press this criminal misc. application at this stage. It is prayed that since the offence is not compoundable, therefore keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties out side the Court, the Court concerned may be directed to take decision on their bail application as early as possible and the trial of the case may also be expedited, as the case is old one. At this juncture, Sri Bipin Mohan Pingal, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has also admitted the above facts and stated that he does not oppose the prayer made on behalf of the applicants. Therefore, in view of the circumstances narrated above and keeping in view that the case is old one and pertains to the year 1996, the trial Court is directed to take decision on the bail application of the applicants without undue delay and the trial of the case may also be decided expeditiously. With these observations, the criminal misc. application is finally disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) Vacation Judge 13.01.2010 NCM: