IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 430 of 2011 Jitendra Mohan Singh Chaddha S/o Amar Jeet Chaddha R/o 12, Chander Road, D ehradun, Uttarakhand. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home Secretariat Complex, Dehradun. 2. Sri Gurpreet Singh Gogi S/o Sardar Mal Singh Gogi R/o 12, Chander Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. ...…………. Respondents Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.04.2011, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court VI, Dehradun, in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2010, whereby said court has dismissed the revision, and maintained the order passed by Special Judicial 2 Magistrate II, Dehradun, on 25.07.2005, in Criminal Case No. 821 of 2005, directing that charge be framed against the accused relating to offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 323, 325, 452, 149 of I.P.C. 3) The incident in question relates to the year 1982. In the year 1983, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial, as one of the sections in which the charge sheet was submitted was Section 308 of I.P.C. It appears that at the time of framing of the charge by the Sessions Judge in sessions trial, when it decided to frame charge under Section 308 of I.P.C., the accused challenged the same before the Allahabad High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Said High Court vide its order dated 07.01.1991, set aside the order challenged in said petition, and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to hear the matter afresh. The Magistrate, after recording statement of the Medical Officer who examined the injuries, again committed the case to the court of Sessions. But, in the year 1998, Sessions court after hearing the parties, observed that there is no material to frame charge of offence punishable under Section 308 of I.P.C. against the accused. It appears that the complainant challenged said order in the High Court, and case was once again remanded back to the trial court. The trial court (Special Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun), after hearing the parties, vide its order dated 25.07.2005, decided to frame charge in respect of offences punishable 3 under Section 147, 148, 323, 325, 452, 149 of I.P.C. which was once again challenged by the injured Jitendra Mohan Chaddha by filing Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2010, before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun. Vide impugned order dated 04.04.2011, Sessions Judge concurred with the view taken by the Magistrate. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court and revisional court have erred in law in holding that there is sufficient material to frame charge of offence punishable under Section 308 of I.P.C. 5) Considering the period for which the criminal case is pending and not progressing because of interference by the higher courts for one reason or the other, this court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case, in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Otherwise also there appears no illegality in the impugned orders. 6) Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 19, 2011. H. Negi 4