IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 NO. 347 OF 2007 Smt. Sarojani Devi and others. ……Applicants. Versus Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal and another. …….Opposite Parties. Present: Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for opposite party no. 2. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been advanced to set aside the order of cognizance dated 22.5.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar (Pauri Garhwal) in Criminal Complaint Case No. 93 of 2006 Chandi Prasad Vs. Surendra Prasad and five others. 2. The facts are that opposite party no. 2 Sri Chandi Prasad filed the said complaint against Sri Surendra Prasad and five others (all family members) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar for the offence of Sections 452, 147, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., and after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate passed the order of cognizance dated 3.8.2006 only against accused Sri Surendra Prasad, while on the basis of statements aforementioned, the learned Magistrate did not find any sufficient reason to pass the order of cognizance against rest of the five accused persons. 3. The case proceeded, and after recording the statements of Sri Chandi Prasad complainant and his wife Smt. Roshni under Section 244 Cr.P.C., an application was moved by Chandi Prasad under Section 319 Cr.P.C. alleging the implication of five other accused 2 persons (all are petitioners in this petition before this Court) and the prayer was made to take cognizance against all the petitioners. The learned Magistrate, in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., passed the order of cognizance dated 22.5.2007 and summoned all the petitioners for the offence of Sections, as aforestated. This order of cognizance was challenged in this petition and further proceedings against the petitioners were stayed in the court below, while the case was permitted to proceed against only accused Sri Surendra Prasad. 4. Having recorded the evidence against accused Sri Surendra Prasad, the trial ended in acquittal on 6.7.2011. A certified copy of the judgment thereof has been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit filed in this Court. 5. The learned counsel of the petitioners has argued that the main accused Sri Surendra Prasad has been acquitted after trial by the court below, while the witnesses against accused Sri Surendra Prasad as well as against these petitioners are the same for the same incident. 6. In the above circumstances, there is left no propriety to permit the court below for proceeding the trial ahead inviting the same witnesses for deposition against the applicants/petitioners. It will be a sheer futile exercise wasting the valuable time of the court. So the petition has merits and it deserves to be allowed. 7. The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.5.2007 taking cognizance against the petitioners in the matter is hereby quashed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 11.10.2011 Rathour