IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 720 of 2011 1. Afzaal 2. Nawab Khan Both sons of Shameem Khan Residence of Allikhan Police Sation Kashipur 3. Shahnawaz Son of Alve Residence of Allikhan Police Sation Kashipur 4. Akram Son of Asif Ali Residence of Allikhan Police Sation Kashipur ………………............Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, Through Secretary, Home Secretary Dehradun. 2. Dr. Madan Mohan Arya, Anestalist, L.D.Bhatt Government Hospital, Kashipur ………….........Respondents Shri Sudhir Singh, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Shri B.S.Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 2 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 330 of 2010, State vs. Afzaal and others, relating to offences punishable under section 332, 353, 427 I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3(1)(X) SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (arisen out of crime no. 381 of 2010 Police Station Kashipur), pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this court to the principle of law laid down in Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2009) 1SCC (Cri) 446, and Rajbir and another vs. State of Uttarakhand and another 2010 (1) U.D.,580, and it is argued that the proceedings of impugned trial are liable to be quashed. (4) Brief facts of the case are that on 31.07.2010, between 10.30 p.m and 11.15 p.m, respondent no.3 Dr. Madan Mohan Arya (complainant) was discharging his duties as 3 Medical Officer in L.D.Bhatt Government Hospital, Kashipur. It appears that a patient was attended in the Hospital but the petitioners were not satisfied with the medical treatment, and it is alleged that petitioner Afzaal hurled abuses at the Dr. Madan Mohan Arya, and he was assaulted by the accused. After investigation, on the report lodged by the Medical Officer, charge sheet was filed in respect of offences punishable under section 332, 353 and 427 I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3(1)(X) SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (5) It appears that on 05.07.2011, after hearing the parties, the charge was framed by the trial court in respect of above mentioned offences. (6) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the State, and after going through the papers on record, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of framing of the charge. However, it is left open to the petitioners to raise the pleas of 4 defence before the trial court, who shall consider the same including the legal pleas as to the ingredients of the offences for which the petitioners are charged. (7) With the above observation, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, this petition is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.10.08.2011 N.P