1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION No. 221 Of 2005 Smt. Vandana Jain W/O Shri Vishal Jain D/O Shri Hari om Agarwal R/O Moh. Painthparav, Ramnagar P.S. Ramnagar, District Nainital ……………. Applicant Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Vishal Jain S/O Shri Santosh Kumar Jain 3. Santosh Kumar Jain S/O Shri Ram Ratan Jain 4. Seema@ Daya D/O Shri Santosh Kumar Jain 5. Prashant Jain S/O Shri Sri Ram Ratan Jain 6. Vinod Kumar Jain S/O Shri Sri Ram Ratan Lal Jain 7. Shalin Jain S/O Shri Vinod Kumar Jain 8. Anchal Jain D/O Shri Shri Santosh Kumar Jain 9. Shashank Jain S/O Shri Santosh Kumar Jain 10. Smt. Anshu Jain W/O Shri Prashant Kumar Jain All R/O Moh Ohjan, Kashipur, P.S Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar ………….. Opposite Parties Shri Amish Agarwal, Advocate present for the petitioner Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A with M.A Khan, Brief Holder present for the State Shri M.C.Bansal, Advocate present for respondent no. 2 to 10 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner has challenged the order-dated 2 26.05.2004, passed by Sessions Judge Udham Singh Nagar in criminal revision no.31 of 2003 Vinod Kumar Jain and others vs. State. (3) By the impugned order the Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 26.06.2003, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial, Magistrate, Kashipur, in criminal case no.2656 of 2000, State vs. Vishal Jain and others, relating to offence punishable under section 498A I.P.C, and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. (4) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner Vandana Jain lodged a first information report with the police in the year 09.11.1999, which was registered as crime no. 1155 of 1999. After investigation police submitted charge sheet against four persons namely Vishal Kumar Jain, Santosh Kumar Jain, Seema @ Daya and Prashant Jain. It appears that during the trial the complainant named five more persons and the trial court vide its order-dated 26.06.2007, summoned them. When they challenged said order in the criminal revision no. 31 of 2003, the revisional court found the order erroneous in law. (5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through papers on record, this court does not find any error of law committed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in allowing the revision, and in setting aside the order dated 26.06.2003, passed by the 3 Additional Chief Judicial, Magistrate, Kashipur, in criminal case no. 2656 of 2000. (6) Therefore, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed. Interim order dated 03.05.2005 stands automatically vacated. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.20.4.2010 N.P