IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRLR No. 100 of 2002 Rajendra Singh ……..Revisionist. Versus State of Uttaranchal & others ….Respondents. Present: Ms. Seema Sirohi, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1. Date of Decision: 30.08.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Oral) The present revision has been filed by the accused challenging the order dated 2.8.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Almora by which charges have been framed against the accused/applicant under Sections 493, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Hema Bisht has stated in her statement that she was taken by the accused/applicant to “Vanwasi Sewa Ashram”, Govindpur, District Sonbhadra where the accused/applicant and the complainant lived together as husband and wife. Thereafter, on 24.08.2001 father in law of the complainant had taken the accused/applicant as well as the complainant to his house where the accused/applicant, father in law, mother in law, sister in law and bother in law abused the complainant and did “Marpeet” with the complainant. After perusing the statement of the complainant, notices have been issued and the charges have been framed against the accused/applicant under Sections 493, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. This Court finds absolutely no anomaly in the charges which have been framed by the court below. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist before this Court is that on the basis of the complaint as well as the statement given by the complainant before the learned Magistrate, no offence against the accused/applicant under Sections 493, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC is made out. Prima facie, this contention of the revisionist is absolutely misconceived. The statement given by the complainant prima facie discloses that a case is made out against the accused/applicant under Sections 493, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. However, it is made clear that any remarks made by this Court shall not effect the trial and the trial court will examine this matter on its merit. This revision therefore is not a fit case which calls for any interference from this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The present criminal revision is totally devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim order, if any, is also vacated. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 30.08.2010 Kuldeep