IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C482) No. 518 of 2005 1. Smt. Parivari Devi W/o Sri Nar Singh 2. Nar Singh S/o Shyam Singh 3. Rakesh 4. Anil Kumar 5. Anurag 6. Subhash All Sons of Nar Singh 7. Km. Meera D/o Nar Singh 8. Km. Jyoti D/o Sri Anil Kumar 9. Mamta W/o Sri Anil Kumar 10. Smt. Sanjana W/o late Sri Rakesh Kumar All R/o H.No. 249, Khurbura Mohall, Thana Kotwali, District Dehradun. ………… Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary in the department of Home Affairs, Dehradun. 2. Mahesh Bisht S/o Sri Ganga Dutt R/o 10, Nala Pani Road, Uper Adohai Wala Thana Raipur, Dehradun. ………… Respondents Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent No. 2/complainant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. 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 sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 4747 of 2004, Mahesh Bisht Vs. Parivari Devi and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 147, 323, 392, 427, 504, 506 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present criminal complaint is counterblast to the criminal complaints filed by Anil Kumar (petitioner No. 4) against the complaint / respondent No. 2 Mahesh Bisht. It is pointed out that respondent No. 2 / Complainant Mahesh Bisht is father-in-law of petitioner No. 4 Anil Kumar. They appear to be litigating in many cases. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court finds that the allegation in respect of offence punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C., appears to be false on the face of it, in view of the close relation between the petitioners and the complainant / respondent No. 2. However, as to the innocence in respect of other offences, it is for the trial court to see after examining the evidence, whether the complainant was assaulted or not, and whether he was insulted or not, by the petitioners. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere in respect of other offences (except the offence punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C.). 5) Accordingly, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is disposed of with the direction that the proceedings of the impugned criminal complaint case are quashed only in respect of offence punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C. However, the proceedings in respect of other offences are not interfered with observing that the petitioners may plead their innocence before the trial court. If the petitioners surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 10, 2010 H. Negi