IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 151 Of 2011 With Urgency Application No. 761 of 2011 1. Hasmat Ali S/o Sagir Ahmad 2. Firasat Ali S/o Hasmat Ali 3. Sabahat Ali S/o Hasmat Ali 4. Smt Ayesha W/o Firasat Ali All R/o Pathanpura, Roorkee District Haridwar ………………..Applicants Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Home, Dehradun 2. Smt Gulishta W/o Sahadat Ali D/o Sharif Ahmad R/o 73 Pathanpura, P.S Kotwali Roorkee, Dist Haridwar At present Rampur Maniharan P.S Ramapur, Dist Saharanpur (U.P) ………….Respondents Shri Manish Arora, Advocate, present for the petitioners Shri T.C.Aggarwal, A.G.A, present for the State Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Urgency Application No. 761 of 2011 is allowed. Heard. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short of Cr.P.C), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of 2 Criminal Case No. 4189 of 2010, State vs. Hasmat Ali and others, relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323 I.P.C and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a criminal complaint in respect of same offence is pending before Saharanpur Court on the initiation of respondent no.2. It is further submitted that for the same offence, the petitioner is made to face the trial in the impugned proceedings. It is pointed out that impugned proceedings are subsequent to the complaint case filed before Saharanpur Court, and as such section 210 Cr.P.C., is also not applicable. However, there is no copy of order filed to show that the petitioners were summoned in the criminal complaint case by Saharanpur Court. As such it can not be said that the impugned proceedings are not maintainable . As far as the factual disputes are concerned whether the petitioners are innocent or not, it is for the trial court to see the same after examining the witnesses. (4) Therefore, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners namely Hasmat Ali, Firasat Ali, Sabahat Ali and Smt Ayesha surrender before the court concerned, their bail 3 application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Vacation Judge Dt.10.02.2011 N.P