IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 411 of 2011 Chand Khan S/o Shri Ibrahim R/o Mahipal Bhawan, Happy Valley Mussoorie, District Dehradun ………..…Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary of Home, Dehradun. 2. Mahipal 3. Govind Both S/o Shri Bhawani Contractor R/o Mahipal Bhawan, Happy Valley, P.S. Mussoorie, District Dehradun ....……Respondents Shri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate, with Ms. Deepa Arya, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the respondent no. 1/State. 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 sought quashing of the order dated 12.03.2010, passed by Special Judge 2 (S.C.S.T. P.A. Act), Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 1996, relating to offences punishable under section 452, 323, 504, 376, 511 IPC, and one punishable under section 3(i)(xi) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) (for short S.C. & S.T. P.A.) Act. 3. In the impugned order the trial court has observed that the accused against whom the offence punishable under section 376 IPC was alleged, had died, as such the trial stood abated as against him. As to the offence punishable under section 3(i)(xi) S.C & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the trial court has found that since the charge was not filed before competent/authorized officer as such, conviction cannot be recorded. The trial court further directed that for the rest of the offences since the same are triable by the Magistrate, the proceedings be transferred to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the case of Kailas & others vs. State of Maharashtra 2011 (1) UC 225, in which the Apex Court has held that on the hyper technical ground the acquittal cannot be recorded. 5. The impugned order was passed in the year 3 2010, and new view expressed through the judgment of the Apex Court is of 5.01.2011. On its basis, the judgment of the trial court cannot be said to be erroneous in law. Apart from this, the impugned order is being challenged after about more than a year. 6. In the above circumstances, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by Special Judge (S.C & S.T.) Act, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 1996, in its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.. 7. The petition is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 12.05.2011