IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 655 of 2008 (M/S) Sita Ram & 3 others … Petitioners Vs State of Uttarakhand & another … Respondents Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No.1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue a writ, in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 01.09.2004 passed by IInd Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Roorkee in complaint No. 636 of 2004, under Sections 364, 302, 201 of I.P.C. as well as order dated 27.03.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 279 of 2004, under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 filed a report against the unknown persons under Section 364 of I.P.C. on 26.08.1998. The investigating agency recorded the statements of the complainant as well as other persons under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and after completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the final report before the court below. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 filed protest petition against the final report. The court below recorded the statement of the complainant as well as witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and the petitioners were summoned by learned IInd Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) vide order dated 01.09.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order, the petitioners preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judgem Haridwar which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2008. 2 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the courts below, the petitioners preferred this petition before this Court. 4. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the entire material available on record, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. The trial court on the basis of the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., wherein it has come that the petitioner Rajpal did not permit the complainant to make search of his house as well as other facts narrated by him and his witnesses has found prima-facie case to summon the accused. Thereafter, the lower revisional court also rejected the revision filed by the petitioners on the ground that the lower court on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. rightly summoned the petitioners. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders passed by both the courts below. I am of the view that there is no flagrant injustice and abuse of process of court in this case. It is the function of the trial judge where the evidence is yet to come and the matter is to be decided finally. At this stage, the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. I do not find any merit in this case at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the petition s dismissed in-limine. 7. However, in case, the petitioners appear before the court in order to obtain their bail, the court dealing with the 3 matter shall decide the bail applications expeditiously without causing any unreasonable delay. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 16.04.2008 ASWAL