IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 03 of 2011 Ashok Kumar Kurichh S/o Trilok Chand R/o 349/29, Civil Lines Roorkee District Haridwar, presently residing at Mahavir enclave Roorkee P.S. Gangnahar, Roorkee District Haridwar …..…Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun 2. N.K. Chaudhary S/o Balwant Rai R/o Arya Samaj Road Ramnagar Roorkee, P.S. Gangnahar Roorkee District Haridwar ……….Respondents Shri R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri T.C. Agarwal, A.G.A, present for the State Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for 2 short Cr.P.C.) the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.11.2010, passed by the revisional court (Additional Sessions Judge/Ist Fast Track Court, Roorkee) in criminal revision no. 205 of 2009, whereby said revision has been dismissed, and the order dated 22.06.2009, passed by Second Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, in criminal complaint case no. 902 of 2008, is affirmed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the aforesaid criminal complaint case relating to offence punishable under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Said case appears to be pending at the stage of defence/arguments. At that stage,the petitioner appears to have moved an application under section 258 Cr.P.C..The trial court did not allow said application. Aggrieved by said order dated 22.06.2009, the petitioner filed the criminal revision which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.11.2010, by the revisional court. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that section 258 Cr.P.C., applies to summons cases which are instituted otherwise than on a complaint. The case pending before the trial court is a complaint case as such, section 258 Cr.P.C., was not at all applicable to 3 it. As such, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order challenged before this Court. 5. Therefore, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by special costs imposed by the revisional court while disposing of the revision. 6. The petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily with the observation that the petitioner shall pay ` 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as special costs instead of ` 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as directed by the revisional court in the impugned order dated 25.11.2010. (Prafulla C. Pant,J.) Parul 04.01.2011