IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 587 of 2011 1. Vaibhav Kumar Sharma S/o Naresh Dutt Sharma 2. Smt.Mithlesh Sharma, W/o Shri N.D. Sharma Both R/o H.No. 1400, Trimurti Bhawan Nandi Chowk, Indira Nagar-I Meerut, District Meerut (U.P.) ………..…Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary of Home, Dehradun 2. Smt. Jyoti Chaudhary D/o Shri Jaiveer Chaudhary R/o Suddowala, P.S. Sahaspur District Dehradun ....……Respondents Shri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate, with Ms. Deepa Arya, Advocate present for the petitioners. Shri T.C. Agarwal, A.G.A., present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioners have challenged the 2 order dated 10.06.2011, passed by the trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, III, Dehradun) in Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2010, State vs. Vaibhav Sharma and others. 3. The allegations given against the petitioners are serious in nature. The trial court appears to have satisfied itself that there is sufficient material to frame charge of offences punishable under section 376, 509, 498A IPC, under section 67 Information Technology Act, and under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against petitioner no. 1 Vaibhav Sharma, and offence punishable under section 498A IPC and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as against the petitioner no. 2 Smt. Mithlesh Sharma. 4. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that prosecution story cannot be believed as true, for the reason that had the petitioner no. 1 committed the offence as alleged he would not have married to the respondent no. 2 Jyoti Chaudhary. 5. There are serious allegations made against the petitioners, and only because correctness of the 3 same is challenged, it can not be said that there is material to frame the charge. 6. It is for the trial court to examine whether the allegations of rape are correct or not, and whether the petitioner is innocent or not. It is not desirable on the part of this Court to interfere with the trial of the case in the above facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the order of the trial court to frame the charge against the accused, is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 06.07.2011