IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 468 of 2010 Thakur Dan Singh Bist Trust Through Chairman Anirudh Singh Katoch S/o Sri B.S. Katoch, R/o Bist Estate, Beerbhatti, District Nainital. ...…………. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand Through Secretary Home, Dehradun. ...…………. Respondent Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the respondent State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 07.02.2009, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital, whereby said court has dismissed the revision No. Nil of 2008, on the ground that the same was barred by time, and no one pressed the delay condonation application. 2 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3) Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged by the petitioner Anirudh Singh Katoch, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 of I.P.C., which was registered as Crime No. 1188 of 2007, with police station Mallital, Nainital. The Investigation Officer after investigation found that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature as the complainant was aggrieved by his removal from Chairmanship of the Trust. It was also found that in respect of Trust property there had been litigation between the parties on the civil side. The said report, after inviting objections from the complainant, was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, vide his order dated 07.08.2007, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 75 of 2007. Against said order, petitioner appears to have filed a Criminal Revision No. Nil of 2008, before the Sessions Judge, Nainital, along with a delay condonation application, for condonation of delay in filing the revision. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was hardly a week’s delay in filing the revision, and the Sessions Judge should not have dismissed the revision, as barred by time. 3 5) I have gone through the impugned order dated 07.02.2009, passed by the Sessions Judge. From the impugned order it is evident that there was none to press the delay condonation application before the Sessions Judge, consecutively on two dates. In that circumstance, learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision. Now, said order dated 07.02.2009, is being challenged by the petitioner after a period of more than one year before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6) In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case for interference in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petition is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. June 29, 2010. H. Negi 4