1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 492 of 2011 1. Ravindar Singh Saini S/o Shri Jagat Singh Saini 2. Malkeet Singh S/o Shri Jagat Singh Saini 3. Tejandar Singh S/o Shri Malkeet Singh 4. Harkamal Singh @ Happy S/o Shri Lamber Singh All R/o Village Vijay Nagliya, Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar ………..…Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. Sewa Singh, S/o Shri Banta Singh R/o Railway Road, Bazpur, P.S. Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ....……Opposite Party Shri Lalit Sharma, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Shri P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, present for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 2492 of 2010, State vs. Malkeet Singh & others, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. 3. Perusal of the papers on record shows that crime no. 140 of 2010, was registered against the petitioners at Reporting outpost ITI, Police Station Kashipur, and after investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioners relating to offences punishable under section 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC. The petitioners prayed for their discharge before the trial court. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found that there is sufficient material on record to frame charge of offences punishable under section 323, 325, 452, 504, 506/34 IPC. (Copy of said order dated 21.04.2011, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, is annexed as Annex. 8 to the petition). It appears that the petitioners challenged said order before the Sessions Judge by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Revision no. 37 of 2011. After hearing the parties, the revisional court modified the order, and directed that the charge may be framed against the petitioners namely Malkeet Singh, Ravindar Singh, Tejander Singh and Harkamal Singh 3 @ Happy, relating to offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506/34 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that material produced by the prosecution is false, and Investigating Officer could not have collected the evidence in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. 4. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the impugned orders passed by the courts below, this Court is of the view that what is required to be seen by the trial court at the time of framing of the charge is whether there is sufficient material to frame the charge against the accused in respect of the alleged offences or not. Truthfulness of the evidence can be examined during the trial. 5. Therefore, this Court does not find sufficient reason to interfere with the trial of the case. Accordingly, 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 08.06.2011