IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 124 OF 2008 Rajpal Singh Chauhan S/o late Gundar Singh Chauhan, R/o village-Jamal, P.O. Yamkeshwar, Patti- Valla Udaipur, 1st. District- Pauri Garhwal. ……… Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. .……….Respondents Dated: October 13 , 2008 Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents. HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred under section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the order dated 28.05.2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri in Criminal Case no. 72 of 2004 State vs. Raj Pal Singh Chauhan u/s 504, 506 I.P.C. and u/s 3(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the trial court issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the revisionist/accused. 2. Heard Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State and perused the record. 3. The facts of the case are that, after completing investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal against the revisionist/accused u/s 504, 506 I.P.C. and u/s 3(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 P.S. Kotdwar. Against that charge sheet and summoning order, the revisionist filed an application/ 2 petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. bearing Crl. Misc. Application no. 406 of 2004 Raj Pal Singh Chauhan vs. State of Uttarakhand and others before this Court and that petition was dismissed on 17.12.2007. However, after the dismissal of that petition moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the revisionist/accused did not appear before the trial Court. On 06.02.2008 the order, by which the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by this Court, was communicated to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Pauri thereafter on this very date the court below issued summon to the accused/revisionist and the date 07.03.2008 was fixed. On 07.03.2008, the accused/ revisionist did not appear before the trail court and again summon was issued by the court below and the next date was fixed as 08.05.2005. On 08.05.2008, counsel for the accused/ revisionist remained present before the trial court and an exemption application u/s 205 (1) Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the accused/revisionist and personal appearance of the accused/revisionist was exempted by the court below and the next date was fixed as 28.05.2008. On 28.05.2008, neither the accused/revisionist was present before the court below nor his counsel remained present, therefore the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri vide the impugned order dated 28.05.2008 issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the accused/ revisionist as no one was present on behalf of the revisionist in the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any error of law in the order impugned passed by the court below. However, Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State has argued that as the accused/revisionist was not present before the court below intentionally, although he had sufficient knowledge of the order passed by the High Court that his petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed and the interim order was vacated. It also reveals from the order dated 08.05.2008 passed by the trial court that personal appearance of the 3 accused/revisionist was exempted through his counsel but merely for that day only. 5. I have perused the impugned order passed by the trial court. It reveals from the order of the trial court that the accused/revisionist was not appearing before the trial court on the date fixed in-spite of the sufficient knowledge of the proceedings going on there, hence the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri has rightly issued the Non-Bailable Warrant against the accused/revisionist on account of his non appearance in the court and deliberately avoiding his appearance before the trial court. I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order dated 28.05.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.10.2008 NCM: