IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. App. No. 182 of 2003 Mohammad Sahid Ansari S/o Rafaqat Ansari R/o 7 Municipal Road Dalanwala, P.S. Dalanwala District Dehradun. ….....Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal. 2. Raisuddin Ansari S/o Mohd. Saqoor R/o Bal Bihar Academy 7 Municipal Road, Dalanwala P.S. Dalanwala, District Dehradun. .……….Respondents. Shri K.S. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri H.C. Pujari, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of charge sheet (copy annexure-2 to the writ petition), dated 21.11.2001, submitted against the petitioner relating to offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as I.P.C.), before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, which is registered as case No. 3508 of 2001, State Vs. Abdul Kadir. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged in respect of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. with police station Kotwali Dehradun, which was registered as case crime No. 661 of 2001, against the petitioner and another accused. It appears that after investigation, the police submitted charge sheet (copy of which is annexure-2 to this petition). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a charge sheet filed in respect of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., submitted against the petitioner and his son, is liable to be quashed as the same is not only false but also the offences lodged in the charge sheet are not triable as warrant trial. 5. Whether the petitioner is innocent or not and whether he is guilty or not, is the mater to be seen by the trial court after the evidence is adduced by the prosecution. This Court with half baked evidence cannot come to the conclusion whether the allegations against the petitioner are true or not. As far as the contention that the case cannot proceed as warrant trial is concerned, it is settled principle of law that if a summons case is tried as warrant trial, the irregularity is not material while if warrant trial is tried as summons case, it is material illegality, which vitiates the trial. No doubt, offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 427 I.P.C., are the offences which are triable as summons case. The only offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is the one in respect of which in view of State U.P. amendment, as it existed on 09.11.2000, applicable to the State of Uttarakhand. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to Case of Virendra Singh & others Vs. Sate of U.P. and others, 2002 (2) JIC 432, whereby Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has declared said amendment in Section 506 I.P.C. as ultra vires. In reply to this, learned counsel for State submitted that said amendment as it existed on 09.11.2000 on the date, the State was divided, is applicable to the State and the judgment and order dated 01.08.2002, passed in criminal Misc. Application No. 4188 of 2002, by Allahabad High Court does not affect the offences regarding which cognizance has already been taken before said judgment was passed. 6. In the above circumstances, having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned trial. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Interim order dated 27.08.2003, stands vacated. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:29.04.2008 Sweta