IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 695 of 2011 Anupam Gupta S/o Vijay Pal Gupta R/o 109/1-7 Civil Lines, Roorkee P.S. Kotwali, Roorkee District Haridwar …..…Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Aarti Chandani W/o Jagdeep Chandani R/o 108/7, Civil Lines, Roorkee P.S. Kotwali, Roorkee District Haridwar 2. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary of Home Dehradun ……….Respondents Shri Pawan Kumar, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A., present for the respondent no. 2/State. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 01.07.2010, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, in criminal complaint case no. 2595 of 2009, Aarti Chandani vs . Anupam Gupta, relating to offence punishable 2 under section 406 IPC. Also, the order dated 27.04.2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, in Criminal Revision No. 273 of 2010, is challenged whereby the order of the Magistrate is affirmed. 3. Impugned orders show that the trial court has decided to frame the charge after hearing the parties, and considering the material on record in respect of offence punishable under section 406 IPC. The revisional court also, after hearing the parties, came to same conclusion. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 406 IPC, are not made out. 5. However, having gone through the statement of P.W. 1 Aarti Chandani, P.W. 2 Jagdeep Chandani, and P.W. 3 Vijay Singh Chauhan, recorded under section 244 Cr.P.C., and other papers on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the trial court to frame the charge against the petitioner. 6. Therefore, without expressing any opinion 3 as to final merits of the case pending before the trial court, this writ petition is dismissed summarily with the observation that the petitioner can raise pleas of his defence during trial. It is observed that the trial court may proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible. (Stay application no. 8505 of 2011, also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 18.08.2011