1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C482) No. 484 of 2010 Subhash Taneja and 11 others …………………… Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 2. Shri Layeek Ahmad S/O Shri Khalil Ahmad, R/O Ward No.6, P.S Kichha, District-Udham Singh Nagar ………………… Respondents Shri Lalit Sharma, Advocate, present for the petitioners Shri G.S.Sandhu, Government Advocate, present for the State Shri Aditya Sah Advocate, Holding Brief of Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate, present for the complainant/ Layeek Ahmad Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 411 of 2010, State vs. Subhash 2 Taneja and others, relating to offences punishable under section 147, 149, 323, 504, 427, 436 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Rudrapur. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits on record. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the witnesses of fact mentioned in the charge sheet have filed their affidavits before this court and they have not supported the prosecution story. (4) Brief facts of the case are that there after a T-20 final cricket match in which India won against Pakistan, it is said that a procession was taken out which went towards the mosque and the Muslim dominated market in Rudrapur. It is further alleged that the procession damaged the property of members of particular community. Petitioners who are 12 in number have come up before this court for quashing of the criminal proceedings. However, considering the nature of the offence, it is not desirable on the part of this court to quash the proceedings merely on the basis of the affidavits filed on behalf of the witnesses. It is 3 left open to the trial court to decide whether witnesses are supporting prosecution or not. (5) In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, this petition is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay by the Magistrate, keeping in mind that the witnesses have already filed affidavits before this court not supporting the prosecution case. The original affidavits of the witnesses can be returned to the petitioners if the copies of said affidavits are supplied in the Registry for the purpose of the record. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.16.6.2010 N.P