IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 450 of 2011 1. Yuthika Mallik W/o Sashodhar Mallik 2. Dwijendra Mallik S/o Sashodhar Mallik 3. Parth Preetam Mallik S/o Sashodhar Mallik 4. Sabyasachi Mallik S/o Sashodhar Mallik All R/o Gyan Vihar Colony Chinhat, Lucknow. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. Smt. Nirupama W/o Dwijendra Mallik D/o Sri Harendra Nath Sarkar R/o B-3, Transit Camp, P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate, with Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for respondent No. 1 / State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.02.2011, 2 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Case No. 1532 of 2010, State Vs. Dwijendra Mallik and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, police station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3) The matter relates to dispute between the complainant / respondent No. 2 Smt. Nirupama and her husband Dwijendra Mallik (petitioner No. 2). The complainant lodged the first information report, after obtaining orders under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., alleging harassment for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioners that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate all the family members due to the matrimonial discord between the complainant and petitioner No. 2. 4) Earlier, a Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 538 of 2010, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., was moved before this court in which the interim order was passed on 15.06.2010. However, finally, said petition was dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners have not concealed said fact, and pleaded that the present petition is against the order dated 25th of February 2011, which is subsequent to the order passed by this court in Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 538 of 2010. 3 5) Referring to the case of Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 259, it is argued that in the matters of matrimonial disputes where there are likelihood of implicating the innocent persons, the Magistrate should have issued firstly the summons and if the accused failed to turn up, only in that case warrants should have been issued. 6) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State, and after going through the papers on record, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is disposed of summarily directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, that on petitioners’ appearing on 31st of May 2011 i.e. the date fixed in the aforesaid case, the bail application of the petitioners Yuthika Mallik, Dwijendra Mallik, Parth Preetam Mallik and Sabyasachi Mallik shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. Meanwhile, the warrants issued by the trial court shall remain in abeyance till that date. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 24, 2011. H. Negi 4