IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 408 of 2010 Puran Nath and another ` …….Applicants. Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ……Respondents. Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Virendra Kaparwan, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. This Criminal Misc. Application was dismissed for non- prosecution on 13.8.2010. Now a restoration application bearing No. 762 of 2010 has been filed by the applicants for recalling the order dated 13.8.2010 and to restore the present application to its original number. The grounds shown in the restoration application seem to be bona fide. Restoration application is allowed. Order dated 13.8.2010 is recalled. Criminal Misc. application is restored to its original number. In view of the law laid down in Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and another reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1971 the matter is liable to be heard and disposed of at this stage itself. Heard Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Virendra Kaparwan, Advocate for the applicants as well as Mr. Nandan Arya, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand. This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants against the summoning order dated 12.4.2010 and the subsequent criminal proceedings initiated against them in Special Sessions Trial No. 7/2010 State Vs. Puran Nath and others under Sections 7/13/(1) (D) read with 13/2 Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Section 120 B I.P.C. pending before the court of learned Special Judge, Nainital. 2 Brief facts of the case are that on a trap led by the Vigilance team on a complaint mad by one Gurnam Singh, one Shanker Singh Bisht was trapped taking bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant. In the complaint which was made to the police, it is true that specific complaint was not against the present two applicants and it was only stated that one Shanker Singh Bisht, constable demanded bribe from the complainant Gurnam Singh and while he was doing so two other police constables, whose names the complainant did not know at that time were also present. However, subsequently during the investigation the complainant gave a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also disclosed the names of the present applicants stating that they approached the complainant and said that he should change his statement in the Court inasmuch because of his statement they have been suspended from the police, etc. etc. This Court cannot go into the details of the matter in its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. All what has to be seen is whether the summons have presently rightly been issued against the applicants. This Court on the basis of the statement made in the counter affidavit whereby the statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has also been annexed, this Court finds that there was enough material before the court below to summon the present applicants under Sections 7/13/(1) (D) read with 13/2 Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Section 120 B I.P.C. Moreover, all the legal as well as factual issues raised by the applicants before this Court are always available to them, as the same issues can be raised by them at the time of framing of charges by the court below. Therefore, it is directed that entire plea (legal as well as factual) raised by the applicants before this Court will be available to the applicants and the same can be raised by the applicants before the court below before the charges are formally framed. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the present application and there is no justification for any interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The present C-482 application is therefore liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 3 No order as to costs. Interim order, if any, is also vacated. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 9.9.2010 Avneet