1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C482) No. 927 of 2011 1. Sadram, S/o Nar Ram 2. Smt. Jasuli Devi, W/o Sadram 3. Shiv Lal @ Shiv Ram, S/o Sadram 4. Smt. Jivanti Devi @ Jibuli Devi W/o Shiv Ram All R/o Village Sure, Patwari Circle Takulti Tehsil Dwarahat, District Almora …..…Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home Uttarakhand, Dehradun 2. Hari Ram, S/o Chanar Ram R/o Village Sure, Patwari Circle Takulti Tehsil Dwarahat, District Almora ……….Respondents Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the 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 petitioners have sought quashing of the of the proceedings of criminal case no. 52 of 2009 (old no. 242 of 2009), Hari Ram vs. 2 Sadram & others, relating to offences punishable under section 323, 504, 427 IPC, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet/Dwarahat. 3. Factual pleas of defence are raised in the petition to show the innocence of the petitioners who are summoned by the Magistrate to face the trial. There appears to be a dispute relating to some land, between the parties in respect of which earlier some proceedings under section 107/116 Cr.P.C., were initiated before the Executive Magistrate. 4. It appears that present petitioner no. 1 Sadram filed a criminal complaint in the year 2007, in respect of the incident dated 27.03.2007. However, the present criminal complaint in question relates to incident dated 20.05.2009, which is filed by the respondent no. 2 Hari Ram. The order dated 12.09.2011, passed by the revisional court (Sessions Judge, Almora) shows that revision against the summoning order has already been dismissed. 5. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the 3 papers on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case on the basis of the factual disputes raised before this Court. It is desirable for the trial court to examine the same, if raised before such court. 6. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily, with the observation that if the petitioners are not on bail on their appearance before the trial court their bail application shall be heard, and disposed of without unreasonable delay as the offences are bailable in nature. It is further observed that since petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 are senior citizens, the trial court is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 12.10.2011