1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 183 of 2011 1. Vinod Kumar Prajapati 2. Pramod Kumar Prajapati Both S/o Bannu Singh R/o Mohalla Bhoop Singh P.S. Jaspur, District U.S. Nagar. ...…………. Petitioners Versus Intejar Hussain S/o Abdul Razaq R/o Village Mastallipur P.S. Thakurdwara, District Moradabad. ...…………. Respondent Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 3173 of 2010, Interjar Hussain Vs. Vinod Kumar Prajapati and another, relating to offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 504, 506 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners are innocent. It is further pleaded that the 2 impugned criminal complaint is counterblast to the criminal case filed by the petitioner No. 1, relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. 4) However, on going through the impugned order and the evidence on the basis of which summoning order was issued by the trial court, this court does not find it to be a case of abuse of process of law. As far as the innocence of the petitioners is concerned, it is for the trial court to see the same, after examining the witnesses in the case. 5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the contents of the complaint and other papers on record, this court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. 6) Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed summarily with the observation that if the petitioners, namely Vinod Kumar Prajapati and Pramod Kumar Prajapati surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. February 24, 2011. H. Negi