1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 788 of 2011 Abdul Wahid S/o Abdul Wahab R/o Nai Basti Gularighati P.S. Ramnagar, District Nainital ………..…Petitioner Versus 1. Abdul Sattar, S/o Shri Chunnu 2. Shakeel, S/o Abdul Sattar 3. Zameel, S/o Abdul Sattar 4. Mobin @ Guddu, S/o Abdul Sattar 5. Shabnam, D/o Abdul Sattar 6. Rafikan, W/o Abdul Sattar All R/o Khurza Gate, Chandausi District Moradabad 7. Irshad, S/o Ali Hussain R/o Kohinoor Timbers, Bhawanigang Kashipur Road, Ramnagar 8. Imtiaz, S/o Ali Hussain R/o Kohinoor Timbers, Bhawanigang Kashipur Road, Ramnagar ....……Respondents Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has challenged the 2 framing of the charge by the trial court only in respect of offences punishable under section 323, 506 IPC, and not on other counts. 3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Mobin (since deceased) had filed criminal complaint case no. 8 of 2011, Mobin Ahmed vs. Abdul Sattar and others, relating to offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506 IPC. In said case, after recording statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C., and that of witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C., the trial court summoned the accused relating to offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506. However, at the stage of 244 Cr.P.C., the complainant has stated that accused Abdul Sattar (father-in-law of the complainant) and others robbed him (complainant) of ` 29,500/-, while taking wife of the complainant, and children to their house. The trial court, after examining the material on record has come to the conclusion that the charge in respect of offences punishable under section 323, 506 IPC, can be framed against the accused, facing the trial. The present petitioner is father of the complainant who is pursuing the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner (father of 3 the complainant) has pleaded that the trial court has erred in law by not framing charge against the accused (respondents) Abdul Sattar, Shakeel, Zameel, Mobin @ Guddu, Shabnam, Rafikan, Irshad, Imtiaz in respect of offences other than 323, 506 IPC. All the above accused appear to be in-laws of the complainant Mobin Ahmed. 5. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and after going through the papers on record, this Court does not find any illegality committed by the trial court, as it has decided to frame charge only in respect of offences punishable under section 323 and 506 IPC, which are made out at the stage of section 245 of Cr.P.C.. 6. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 29.08.2011