IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 27 of 2008 Mahavir Prasad hardwaj S/o Late Laxman Das R/o Mohalla Lalkuon Kankhal …Applicant Vs 1. State of Uttarakhand, through Home Secretary, Dehradun 2. Puroshottam @ Pochan S/o Rameshwar Prasad R/o Moh-Missarpura, Kankhal District Haridwar 3. Ashish S/o Purushottam R/o Mh-Missarpura, Kankhal District Haridwar 4. Vishnu S/o Rameshwar Prasad R/o Lalkuon Kankhal 5. Manoj S/o Vishnu R/o Lalkuon Kankhal Sri Nagesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner Learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No.1 Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 Hon'ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner, who is the complainant in criminal Case No. 78 of 2003, State Vs Purushottam under Sections 323, 504, 506, of I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar has sought the relief for quashing the order dated 19.04.2006 passed by Judicial magistrate Haridwar as well as order dated 01.10.2007 passed by learned Session Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 200 of 2006. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report was lodged by the petitioner against the respondents No. 2 to 5 under Section 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. The police after investigating the case submitted the chargesheet against the respondents No. 2 to 4 only. The police did not submit the chargesheet against the respondent No. 5 - Manoj. However during the course of trial two witnesses were examined Mahavir Prasad (P.W.1) has although named Manoj as an accused but Bhaskar Ghosh (P.W.2) has not named Manoj as an accused in his deposition. The complainant thereafter moved an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning - Manoj as an accused in the case but the learned Magistrate vide order dated 19.04.2006 rejected the same. The complainant who is the petitioner before this Court preferred the revision before the court of Sessions Judge, Haridwar and the same was also dismissed by learned Session Judge, Haridwar vide order dated 01.10.2007. The complainant has thus approached to this Court by way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar as well as learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar. 3. Heard Sri Naesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State/ respondent No. 1 as well as Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and perused the record. 4. The record reveals that learned Magistrate has recorded a categorical finding that out of the prosecution witness - Mahaveer Prasad who is the complainant in the case has named Manoj as an accused and another witness Bhaskar Ghosh (P.W.2) who is an independent witness in the case has not named Manoj as an accused in his deposition. 5. This fact also cannot be ignored that the police did not submit the chargesheet against Manoj. The Magistrate has thus rightly observed in the order that whenever the rest of the evidence will be adduced by the prosecution then it will be considered as to whether it would be necessary, in the interest of justice, to summon Manoj to face the trial or not. The court has not closed the doors for the complainant in the matter . I, therefore, do not find any abuse of process of court at this stage, in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. No manifest error has been committed by the courts below while passing the orders. I do not find any merit in this petition. 6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in-limine. (B.C.Kandpal, J.) 10.01.2008 ASWAL