IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 1041 of 2011 1. Munfait S/o Ninna 2. Azam S/o Haneef 3. Tajul S/o Hasin 4. Jabir S/o Jafra All are R/o Margubpur P.S. Bahadrabad District Hardwar ………………..Applicants Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Uttarakhand District, Dehradun. 2. Riyajul S/o Atahussain R/o R/o Margubpur P.S. Bahadrabad District Hardwar ………….........Respondents Shri Manish Arora, Advocate, present for the petitioners Shri B.S.Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State. Shri Mohd Safdar, Advocate, present for respondent no.2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2 (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of order dated 09.02.2011, passed by IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar in Criminal Case No. 62 of 2010, whereby accused (petitioners) have been summoned to face the trial in respect of offences punishable under section 147, 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., after the charge sheet is filed by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this court to the order dated 09.11.2011, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1023 of 2011 on the petition of Mohd Kasif, and it is pleaded that the proceedings be stayed against the petitioners. However, the ground on which the order dated 09.11.2011, is passed is not available to the present petitioners. (3) It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that medical report filed in support of the prosecution case is false. Whether, the medical report is false or true, it can not be examined by this court in its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is for the trial to examine the same after recording 3 evidence of the parties. (4) Lastly, it is argued on behalf of the petitioners that co accused Kasif filed a revision before the revisional court challenging the summoning order. I have seen the copy of said order which is annexed as annexure-11 to the petition passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardwar, in Criminal Revision No. 125 of 2011. The summoning order on charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer is an interlocutory order, and against such order no revision is maintainable. However, the revisional court has entertained the same and decided it on merits, and even on merits the summoning order was found, not liable to be interfered with. As such, the rights of accused are not at all prejudiced. (5) For the reasons as discussed above, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners namely Munfait, Azam, Tajul and Jabir surrender before the court concerned within a period of ten days from today, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. If the petitioners fail to surrender within ten days from 4 today the Non Bailable Warrants issued by the trial may be got executed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.16.11.2011 N.P