IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 545 of 2011 1. Lahaur Singh S/o Shri Sarjeet Singh R/o Quart No. 105/II/I B.H.E.L. Ranipur, P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar …......Applicant (accused) 2. Sunny Kumar S/o Shri Kashmir Chand R/o Village Abbuwala P.S. Pathari Haridwar 3. Navneet, S/o Shri Mohan Lal R/o Punjab Sindh Kankhal P.S. Kankhal, District Haridwar ………..…Applicants (victims) Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through S.S.P. Haridwar 2. Ashok Saini S/o Shri Ram Singh Saini R/o Govindpuri Ranipur More, Jwalapur, P.S. Kotwali Jwalapur District Haridwar ....……Respondents Shri Arvind Vashisth, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Shri Nandan Arya, A.G.A., present for the State. Shri Parikshit Saini, Advocate, present for the complainant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 10.06.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in criminal revision no. 4 of 2011, whereby said court has set aside the order dated 15.09.2010, passed by the trial court. 3. Brief facts, of the case are that crime no. 123 of 2010, relating to offences punishable under section 147, 323 IPC, was registered at Police Station Jwalapur against the accused Lahaur Singh. After investigation charge sheet appears to have been filed in respect of offences punishable under section 147, 323, 326 IPC. There was cross case in which also charge sheet was filed. It appears that on the basis of the charge sheet filed against Lahaur Singh case no. 451 of 2010, was registered, and after taking cognizance, the Magistrate summoned the accused vide his order dated 07.08.2010. On 15.09.2010, it appears that investigating officer moved an application to permit him to score of section 326 IPC, from the charge sheet, and to substitute it by offence punishable under section 325 IPC. The Magistrate not only allowed the application but also scored of section 326 IPC from the charge sheet and also in the summoning order, and substituted it by section 325 IPC. The 3 complainant/injured appears to have filed criminal revision against said order and, the impugned order was passed after hearing the parties holding that the Magistrate had erred in law in making correction in the charge sheet as well as in the summoning order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the provision contained in 362 Cr.P.C.. Said section applies to the judgments and final orders and, not meant for making correction in the charge sheet, and interlocutory summoning order in police chalani case. This Court does not find any error of law committed by the revisional court in setting aside the order passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that two of the injured have compounded the offence with the accused Lahaur Singh. And section 326 is non compoundable. 5. If the two of the injured have entered into compromise with the accused that does not entitle them to get allowed correction in the charge sheet, and the summoning order, in the manner it is done by the Magistrate in the present case. 6. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, this Court is not inclined to 4 interfere with the order passed by the revisional court. 7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the trial, this petition is dismissed summarily with the observation that this Court has not examined effect of compromise if any between accused and the two injured. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 23.06.2011