IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 686 of 2005 1. Sunil Kumar S/o Chandra Sekher 2. Ajay Pandey S/o Chandra Sekher 3. Babita @ Batasi Devi W/o Ajay Pandey All R/o Bishanpura Police Station Salempur Kotwali District Deoria Presently R/o Quarter No. 733/IV B.H.E.L. Police Station Ranipur District Haridwar …..Applicant Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Triloki Nath Pandey S/o Late Ram Naresh Pandey R/o Village Matiyra Police Station Salempur Kotwali District Deoria ... Opposite Parties Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in Misc. Case No. 92 of 2005 arising out of Case Crime No. 132 of 2000 under Section 304-B of I.P.C. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that a First Information Report was lodged against the applicants under Section 304-B. The police after the investigating submitted the Final Report. Against the submission of the Final Report, protest petition was filed by the complainant and learned Magistrate after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and after having perused the entire record was pleased to reject the Final Report. The Magistrate vide order dated 3rd September, 2005 summoned the accused/applicants for facing their trial under Section 304-B. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioners preferred the revision before the learned Sessions Judge which was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 27.09.2005. The petitioner has thereafter preferred this petition under Session 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the aforesaid impugned orders. Heard Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, as well as Sri Nandan Arya, leraned A.G.A. and perused the record. I do not find any miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of Court at this stage. I also could not lay my hand on this appeal that any mandatory provision of law has not been complied with. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants are question of facts which could be assessed and examined by the trial court during the course of trial. I do not find any ground on which I may come to the conclusion that the proceedings pending before the court below could be disturbed at this stage. The petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 is dismissed. However, if the petitioners appear before the court below for seeking their bail, the court concerned shall dispose of the bail applications expeditiously. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 06.10.2005 ASWAL