IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C482) No. 102 of 2004 1. Savitri Devi W/o Sri Mahesh Chand Bisht 2. Rupesh S/o Sri Mahesh Chand Bisht 3. Nitesh S/o Sri Mahesh Chand Bisht. 4. Mahesh Chand Bisht All R/o Sajwan Kheda, Nala Pani Road, Police Station Raipur, Distt. Dehradun. ………… Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Anil Kumar S/o Sri Nar Singh R/o 249, Khurbura Mohalla, Police Station Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun ………… Respondents Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for respondent No. 2/complainant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 128 of 2003, relating to offences punishable under Section 323, 325, 149, 395, 504, 506 of I.P.C., police station Raipur, District Dehradun, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit. 3) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 Anil Kumar has filed the criminal complaint against the petitioners stating that he is tenant of the petitioner No. 1 Savitri Devi. It is also pleaded that she (petitioner No. 1) is his mother-in-law. It is alleged in the criminal complaint that the petitioners wanted to get the shop vacated from the complainant. A civil suit No. 223 of 2000 was filed by the complainant before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun. As a counter blast to said suit, criminal complaint case No. 1328 of 2001 was filed by Savitri Devi (petitioner No. 1) against Anil Kumar (present complainant / respondent No. 2). It is alleged that on 19.09.2001, the petitioners attacked the complainant, assaulted him, and took Rs. 1,350/- from his pocket. 4) The trial court has summoned the accused in respect of all the offences, including the one punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C. It is not clear from the impugned order whether, in respect of offence triable by the Sessions Judge, all the witnesses were examined by the Magistrate, or not. It is pertinent to mention here that it is a case between son-in-law and mother-in-law, and in such a case unless there is strong evidence of dacoity, the petitioners could not have been summoned in respect of offence punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C. 5) For the reasons as discussed above, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is disposed of with the direction that the trial of the petitioners in respect of offence punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C., is hereby quashed. In respect of other offences, it is left open to the petitioners, to plead their innocence before the trial court. With these observations the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands disposed of with further observation that if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Stay Vacation Application No. 1331 of 2006 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 10, 2010 H. Negi