IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 334 of 2010 Rahul Saxena, S/o Shri Santosh Kumar R/oKelakhera, Near Police Chowki Tehsil and Thana Bazpur District Udham Singh Nagar. …………..…Applicant. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. Smt. Rakhi alias Rohani Saxena w/o Shri Rahul Saxena D/o Sri Ram Avtar Saxena R/o Tarai Bihar Colony, Rudrapur District Udham Singh Nagar. ………….Respondents. Shri Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, present for the petitioners Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State/Respondent No. 1. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short Cr.P.C), the petitioner has sought quashing of the summoning order dated 24.10.2009, passed by Judicial 2 Magistrate First Class, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in criminal case No. 807 of 2009, Rakhi vs. Rahul Saxena. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no sufficient evidence to summon the accused in the aforesaid criminal complaint case. I have gone through the copy of the statement recorded by the Magistrate under section 200 of Cr.P.C., and that of the witnesses under section 202 of Cr.P.C., which are annexed with Annexure-2 to the petition. A further precaution has been taken by the Magistrate to verify the fact by seeking report from the police. After considering the evidence on record Magistrate has summoned only one accused Rahul Saxena (husband) in respect of offences punishable under section 323, 452, 504, 506, 498-A of I.P.C. This Court does not find any error of law committed by the trial court in summoning the accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the principle of law read in Pepsi Food Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5SCC page 3 749. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the criminal complaint is a counter blast to the suit instituted by the petitioner for Restitution of Conjugal Rights and further divorce petition. 5. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the papers on record and the principle of law, applicable to the case, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned summoning order. 6. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner Rahul Saxena, surrenders before the court concerned his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Stay application 373 of 2010 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:22.04.2010 parul 4 5