IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Restoration Application No. 494 / 2011 Delay Cond. Application No. 733 / 11 In Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 66 of 2011 Kirti Ballabh Bhatt S/o Sri Poornanand Bhatt Presently posted as Head Master Govt. Primary School, Nauliyagaon Pati, District Champawat R/o Village Goom, Post Office Pati D istrict Champawat. ...…………. Petitioner / applicant Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home Dehradun. 2. Sri Bhuwan Chandra Joshi Assistant Coordinator, BRC Pati, District Champawat. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate, present for the petitioner / applicant. Mrs. Mamta Joshi, A.G.A., present for the State. Mr. Ashwani Negi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Davesh Upreti, Advocate, present for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is Delay Condonation Application No. 733 of 2011, for condonation of delay in moving the Restoration Application MCRC No. 494 of 2011, for restoration of Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 66 of 2011, which 2 was dismissed for non-prosecution by this court, on 20.05.2011. 2) Perused the affidavit filed with the delay condonation application. The delay condonation application is allowed. Delay is condoned. 3) Heard, on restoration application, and perused the affidavit filed with the application. 4) In view of the principle of law laid down in Madhumilan Syntex Limited and others Vs. Union of India and another, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 1971, the restoration application is allowed, on the condition that the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. shall be heard on merits, today. 5) The Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 66 of 2011 is restored to its original number. 6) Also, heard on the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., on merits. 7) The first information report discloses that complainant who was a senior officer to the petitioner Kirti Ballabh Bhatt, has lodged first information report that he was assaulted by the petitioner, and got injured. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner, in respect of offences punishable under Section 332 / 353 of I.P.C. 3 8) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first information report lodged by respondent No. 2 was counterblast to the first information report lodged by the petitioner against respondent No. 2. However, it appears that after investigation, no offence is said to have been made out as against respondent No. 2. The petitioner has taken plea of innocence, and contended that it is a case of victimization at the hands of respondent No. 2. Such pleas are factual in nature which can be examined by the trial court. It is not desirable on the part of this court to interfere with the trial on the basis of disputed questions of fact. 9) Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed, on merits. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. July 08, 2011. H. Negi