IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 306 of 2010 1. Abdul Samad, S/o Mohd. Murtaza. 2. Smt. Varisha, W/o Mohd. Murtaza 3. Mohd. Murtaza S/o Mazahar All R/o Village-Baggowali, Police Station- Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar District-Muzaffarnager (U.P.) 4. Smt. Tayyaba W/o Mahetab D/o Mohd. Murtaza, R/o village-Dadheru Khurd Police Station-Kotwali Muzaffarnagar (U.P) …………..…Applicants. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, through Home Secretary District- Dehradun. 2. Smt. Sabnam W/o Shri Abdul Samad, D/o Shri Jahoor Ahmad R/o House No. 286, Sati Mohalla Imli Road, Roorkee, Police Station- Kotwali-Roorkee District-Haridwar. ……….Opposite party. Shri Rajendra Singh, Advocate present for the petitioners. Shri. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder present for the respondent No.1/ State. Shri Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate present for the respondent No. 2/complainant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short Cr.P.C), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No.16 of 2010, State vs. Abdul Samad & others relating to offences punishable under section 498-A, 313, 323, 504, 506, 452 of I.P.C. and had punishable under section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station, Kotwali Roorkee, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid criminal case due to the matrimonial discord between respondent No. 2, Smt. Shabnam and her husband Abdul Samad (petitioner No. 1). It is pleaded that the petitioner No. 2 is mother- in-law, petitioner no. 3 is father-in-law and petitioner No. 4 is married-sister-in-law, who lives separately from Abdul Samad (petitioner No. 1). 4. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent No. 2/complainant attention of 3 this Court is drawn to the injury report of complainant and it is pleaded that it can be seen only by the trial court whether the petitioners are innocent, or not. 5. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through papers on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case but thinks it just in proper to direct that bail application of the petitioners be heard and disposed off without unreasonable delay on their surrendering before the court concerned. 6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners Abdul Samad, Smt. Varisha, Moh. Murtaza and Smt. Tayyaba surrender before the court concerned their bail applications shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. Dt:13.04.2010 parul (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 4