1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Restoration Application / MCRC No. 221 of 2010 In Criminal Misc. Appln (C482)No. 532 of 2009 1. Gurmeet Kaur W/O Tarsam Singh R/O Village Dabhora Ahtatmali, Thana Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Trilochan Singh, S/O Gurdeep Singh R/O jagdish Wala, Thana Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar ………………………. Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun 2. Jaswant Singh, S/O Darsan Singh R/O Village Mukand pur, Ahtatmali Thana Kashipur,Udham Singh Nagar. …………..Respondents Shri B.S.Parihar, Advocate, present for the petitioners Shri M.A.Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State Shri D.C.S. Rawat,Advocate present for respondents Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is restoration application MCRC No. 221 of 2010 moved on behalf of the petitioners for restoration of criminal Misc. application (C-482) No. 532 of 2009, which was dismissed for non prosecution on 17.03.2010. (2) Heard and peruse the affidavit filed with the application. (3) Restoration application is allowed on the condition that the learned counsel for the parties shall argue the petition restored, today itself. The petition stands restored accordingly. 2 (4) Also heard on petition moved under section 482 of Cr.P.C, restored today. (5) Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Jaswant Singh lodged first information report against the petitioners on 18.03.2009, alleging that they got an account opened with Canara Bank and withdrew an amount of Rs. 28,000/- regarding which complainant’s case is that he was entitled to withdraw the same. On said first information report which was registered as crime no. 374 of 2009, after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners Gurmeet Kaur and Trilochan Singh, relating to offences punishable under section 420, 181 I.P.C. (6) Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the petitioners belongs to BPL category (below poverty line) and entitled to the allotment under the scheme of Indra Awas Yozana and they have not committed any forgery or crime. It is also pleaded that complainant/ respondent no.2 is not resident of village Ahtatmali. (7) Whether the complainant is really resident of Ahtatmali or not, whether the petitioners are actually a members of BPL category are the questions of fact which can be examined by the trial court after recording evidence. It is not desirable on the part of this court to form any opinion on the basis of the incomplete evidence before it. 3 (8) Therefore, criminal Misc. petition (C-482) No. 532 of 2009 is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners Gurmeet Kaur and Trilochan Singh surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.28.04.2010 NP