IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Stay Application No. 1145 of 2010 Miscellaneous Application No. 3537 of 2011 In CRIMINAL REVISION No. 196 of 2010 1. Laxman Singh S/o Bahadur Singh Mehra 2. Ms. Tara Mehra W/o Laxman Singh 3. Ms. Parwati Devi W/o Bahadur Singh All R/o Halduchaur Bachchi Dharma, P.S. Lalkuaon District Nainital. 4. Ms. Hema Dhyani W/o Kishan Singh R/o Chamunda Vihar Colony P.S Kashipur, Districht Udham Singh Nagar .....................Revisionists Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary Home Dehradun. 2. Ms. Hemlata D/o Devendra Singh Mehra W/o Kharak Singh Mehra R/o Govt. Polytechnic Campus, Kashipur, P.S. Kashipur Districht Udham Singh Nagar ………....….......Respondents 2 Shri Gopal K.Verma, Advocate, present for the revisionists Shri T.C.Aggarwal, Additional G.A., present for the state. Shri Lalit Sharma, Advocate, present for the respondent no.2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) This revision is directed against the order dated 25.08.2010, passed by the trial court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur), whereby said court has decided to frame the charge against the revisionists namely Laxman Singh, Ms. Tara Mehra, Ms. Parwati Devi and Ms. Hema Dhyani. (3) Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the revisionists are falsely implicated due to matrimonial discord between the complainant Hamlata and her husband Kharak Singh Mehra. (4) However, the trial court at the stage that framing of the charge has to see whether from the evidence on record if taken to be true ingredients 3 of the alleged offences for which the charge sheet is filed, are made out or not. The truthfulness of the evidence is to be examined during trial after the witnesses are cross examined. (5) In the circumstances, having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the evidence on record, on the basis of which the charge is framed against the revisionists, without prejudice to the rights of the parties, this court in not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of framing of charge against the revisionists. (6) Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, pending before the trial court, this revision is dismissed summarily. (Miscellaneous Application No. 3537 of 2011 stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.26.09.2011 N.P