IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Recall Application (MCRC) No. 363 of 2010 And / in Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 386 of 2004 1. Prem Ballabh Sati S/o Shri Narottam Sati 2. Smt. Champa Sati W/o Prem Ballabh Sati 3. Bhuwan, S/o Shri Prem Ballabh Sati 4. Munna, S/o Khima Nand 5. Dinesh, S/o Ishwari Dutt All R/o Village Lokmanipur, Sigari Police Station Kotdwar District Pauri Garhwal ………….. Applicants Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) 2. Smt. Hema Devi W/o Basudev R/o Village Lokmanipur Police Station Kotdwar District Pauri Garhwal …………Respondents Shri Rajendra Kotiyal, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Shri Pradeep Lohani, Advocate, present for the respondent no.2/complainant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is application MCRC No. 363 of 2010, moved on behalf of the petitioners/applicants for recalling of order dated 15.09.2008, passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C482) No. 386 of 2004. 2. Heard, and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit filed in support of the recall application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants submitted that the order dated 15.09.2008, was passed by this Court due to inadvertence, as no such statement, for not pressing the application was made by the counsel for the petitioners. 4. Having considered submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the papers on record, the recall is made on the condition that the counsel of the parties shall argue on the merits in the petition moved under section 482 of Cr.P.C., today itself. Accordingly, the application MCRC No. 363 of 2010, stands allowed with above condition. Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C482) No. 386 of 2004 is restored to its original number. 4. Also, heard on the criminal miscellaneous application (C482) No. 386 of 2004. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants read out the contents , of the criminal complaint case no. 874 of 2003 filed by the respondent no. 2 Hema Devi against the petitioners before Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar (copy Annexure-1 to the petition). It is pleaded that admittedly there is a land dispute between the parties. It is contended that it is hard to believe that on 03.09.2003, as stated by the complainant petitioners together entered in her house and committed robbery, as alleged in the criminal complaint. 6. In reply to this, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2/complainant submitted that the petitioners are influential persons and the complainant is a poor lady. It is further submitted on behalf of the complainant that the petitioners want to grab the land of the complainant. As to the offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506, 395 and 452 I.P.C., it is stated that even if, there is no injury report of the person of the complainant, merely for that reason it cannot be said that alleged offences are not made out. 7. However, as to the offences punishable under section 452, 395 I.P.C., this Court is of the view that there appears to be exaggeration of the facts on the part of the complainant, and there is little evidence to support commission of these two offences by the petitioners, on the record on the basis of which they could have been summoned. 8. For the reasons as discussed above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that in a case of simple ‘marpeet’ and threat to the complainant, it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to get summoned accused in the graver offences like section 452, 395 I.P.C., without there being sufficient material for that. Therefore, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is disposed of with the following directions:- The impugned criminal complaint no. 874 of 2003, Hema Devi vs. Prem Ballabh Sati and others, is not interfered with so far as it relates to the offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. However, so far as the impugned summoning order dated 17.11.2003, relating to offences punishable under section 452, 395 I.P.C., is concerned, the same is quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 14.06.2010 Parul