IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application 800/2009 Rajpal Singh Chauhan ….. Applicant/Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand ….Respondent Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. ……………………… October 28, 2009 Hon. Dharam Veer, J. This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the applicant/petitioner against the order dated 20.10.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1St Class, Pauri in criminal case no. 408/2008 under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of S.C.S.T. Act, 1985, P.S. Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, whereby an order to proceed against the applicant/petitioner as per Section 82(2)(c) CrPC has been passed. The applicant/petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondent that no coercive measure in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 20.10.2009 be initiated against him. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The case of the applicant/petitioner, in brief, is that a criminal case no. 408 of 2008 under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of S.C.S.T. Act, 1985, P.S. Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal is pending against him before the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1St Class, Pauri. The aforesaid case was posted for 20.10.2009. On the date fixed i.e. on 20.10.2009, applicant/petitioner did not 2 appear before the court below and, therefore, the court below vide the impugned order dated 20.10.2009 ordered to proceed against the applicant/petitioner as per Section 82(2)(c) CrPC and posted the case for 23.11.2009. Learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioner submitted that no notice or summon was served upon the applicant/petitioner and he was not intentionally absent from the court on 20.10.2009. Neither the applicant nor his family members ever received any warrant issued by the court below. Averments to this effect have also been made in para 8 of the affidavit. Learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioner further submitted that marriage of the daughter of the petitioner is scheduled on 29.10.2009 and due the aforesaid impugned order, he is unable to discharge the pious obligation of a father during the marriage ceremony of her daughter. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available before me, I am of the view that in the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 20.10.2009 is liable to be set aside for the reason that no notice or summon was served upon the applicant/petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 20.10.2009. Accordingly, the order dated 20.10.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1St Class, Pauri in criminal case no. 408/2008 under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of S.C.S.T. Act, 1985 is hereby set aside. However, the applicant/petitioner is directed to appear before the court below on the next date fixed in the case i.e. on 23.11.2009. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 28.10.2009 Prabodh 3