IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 542 of 2008 Sheo Singh .……… Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another .……… Respondents Mr.Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, A.G.A. for respondent No.1. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being taken up today for final disposal at the motion hearing stage without it being formally admitted for hearing. This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for seeking quashment of the summoning order dated 21/08/2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate Laksar, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.507/2007 titled State Vs. Sheo Singh. Respondent No.2 Kali Ram lodged F.I.R. against accused Pramod Kumar, Naresh, Vinod, Naitram and Bharto Devi u/s 302 and 201 I.P.C. After completing the Investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet on 10/04/2007 before the learned Magistrate u/s 306 and 201 I.P.C. against accused Pramod Kumar, Naresh, Vinod, Naitram and Bharto Devi. The investigation against the present applicant Sheo Singh remain continued. After completion of the investigation against the present applicant, the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet on 19/04/2007 u/s 201 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate after receiving the chargesheet against the present applicant also summoned the applicant Sheo Singh u/s 306 and 201 I.P.C. The grievance of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there was no evidence against the accused/applicant Sheo Singh u/s 306 I.P.C. Perusal of the chargesheet clearly reveals that there was a prima-facie case u/s 201 I.P.C. only against the present accused/applicant Sheo Singh. The learned Magistrate had erred in summoning the accused/applicant Sheo Singh u/s 306 & 201 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate has not given any reasons as to why he has 2 summoned the present accused/applicant u/s 306 I.P.C. In absence of any reasoning that there is prima-facie evidence u/s 306 I.P.C. against the applicant, it would not be just and proper to summon the accused/applicant u/s 306 I.P.C. Thus, the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance u/s 306 I.P.C. is liable to be quashed. Whereas the cognizance u/s 201 I.P.C. is concerned it does not require any interference. It is further made clear that while framing the charge, if the learned trial court finds that there is a prima-facie case u/s 306 I.P.C. against the accused/applicant, the learned trial court would not prejudice by the finding of this court and he can very well proceed against the accused/applicant u/s 306 I.P.C. also during the trial. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 26.08.2008 Shiv 3