IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Case No. 274 of 2011 1- Smt. Bichitra Devi W/o Shri Bhagwan Singh. 2- Bhagwan Singh S/o Shri Kedar Singh. 3- Amar Dev Singh S/o Shri Saukar Dutt. 4- Daya Ram S/o Kanti Ram. 5- Roop Chand S/o Maidar Singh. 6- Dilram S/o Kanti Ram. 7- Dhanpal Singh S/o Narayan Singh. 8- Smt. Roop Dei W/o Shri Gaje Singh. 9- Amar Dev S/o Markandey. 10- Smt. Sarita W/o Shri Uttam Singh. 11- Smt. Neema W/o Shri Ram Singh Negi. All residents of Village Bhaiti, Patti-Thati Kathur Tehsil and Police Station-Ghansali, District-Tehri Garhwal. ….…..Petitioners Versus 1- State of Uttarakhand, through District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal. 2- Smt. Prem Dei W/o Shri Hukam Singh Resident of Bhaiti, Patti-Thati Kathur Tehsil and Police Staion-Ghansali, District-Tehri Garhwal. ……Respondents Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, A G.A., present for the State. Mr. V.P. Bahuguna, Advocate, present for the respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought quashing 2 of proceedings of Criminal Revision No. 01 of 2011, Smt. Prem Dei Vs. Smt. Bichitra Devi and others, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, and to set aside the order dated 28.01.2011, whereby the said court has admitted the revision and notices have been directed to be issued to the respondents. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the criminal complaint was dismissed by the trial court under Section 203 of Cr.P.C., and the complainant has filed a criminal revision, as such the petitioners were unnecessarily made parties in the revision filed before the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to show to this court any provision of law, which prohibits revisional court for issuing notices to the respondents, impleaded in the revision against the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. No injustice is being caused by merely issuing the notices to the respondents in the revision. The powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised only towards the ends of justice. Since no prejudice is being caused to the petitioners, by issuing notices to them, as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, passed in admitted revision filed by the complainant against the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. 3 5) Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed summarily. Impugned order dated 29.03.2011, is hereby vacated. It is observed that if the petitioners, who are respondents before the revisional court do not want to be heard, they need not put their appearance. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 13.09.2011 JM