IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 455 of 2010 1. Shri Anil Kumar Bidani S/o Sri P.N. Bidani R/o 8, Bank Enclave, Ring Road, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. 2. Smt. Madhu W/o Shri Anil Kumar Bidani R/o 8, Bank Enclave, Ring Road, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. 3. Sumit Bidani S/o Shri Anil Kumar Bidani R/o 8, Bank Enclave, Ring Road, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. Smt. Payal Bidani W/o Shri Sumit Bidani D/o Shri Kedar Nath Batla R/o Shiv Vihar, Railway Road, Jwalapur, P.S. Jwalapur, Distt. Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate for respondent No. 1 / State. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have 2 sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5042 of 2007, State Vs. Anil Kumar Bidani and others, relating to offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, police station Jwalapur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial court has committed irregularities in framing the charge against the petitioners. It is further pointed out that provisions contained in Section 212 and 218 of Cr.P.C. are violated. 4) I have gone through the copy of the charge framed by the trial court against the accused (petitioners), and also perused the impugned order dated 05.05.2010, passed by the revisional court, in Criminal Revision No. 367 of 2009. 5) Section 215 of Cr.P.C. provides that no error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was infact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice. The irregularities pointed out on behalf of the petitioners are not such on the basis of which it can be said that the trial is vitiated. 3 Apart from this, Section 464 of Cr.P.C. further protects the error, omission and irregularities in the charge unless there is failure of justice occasioned by such error, omission or irregularity. The criminal case between the parties has arisen out of the matrimonial discord, and in the circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any error which has misled the petitioners. 6) However, all pleas of innocence, including the plea of territorial jurisdiction, can be raised by the petitioners before the trial court during the trial. 7) With the above observations, this petition moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 21, 2010. H. Negi