IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 2011 Smt. Meera Yadav. ………. Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another. ..………. Respondents Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. Government Advocate for the State / respondent No. 1. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) A suit seeking restitution of conjugal rights, filed under the Hindu Marriage Act, was contested by the appellant herein. The respondent No. 2 herein / plaintiff before the court below listed a number of evidences to be tendered by him in support of his claim in the suit. One of them was a list purporting to show calls made from time to time to a particular phone number as mentioned therein. Appellant filed an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contending that listing of the said phone number and holding out that calls were made to the said phone number is such an action on the part of respondent No. 2 that the same calls for intervention of the court under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said application has been dismissed and, hence, the present appeal. 2. The evidence in that regard has not yet been tendered. Until such evidence is tendered, it cannot be contended that the evidence, thus brought in, can or cannot be dealt with under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application, as was made by the appellant, was a misconceived application and was aimed at delaying the process of the court. We, accordingly, refuse to admit the appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 28.12.2011 28.12.2011 G