IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.461 OF 2010 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Majid Ahmed …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …………Respondents Dated: July 16, 2010 Sri K.S. Bora, Adv. i/b Mr. MK Ray, Adv. for the applicant Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of t7he Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the charge sheet dated 23.7.2009/cognizance order dated 19.8.2009 and whole proceedings in Criminal Case No.598 of 2010, Majid Ahmed & others Vs. State, U/s 120-B/201/203 IPC pending before CJM, US Nagar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Bauntiyal, SHO, PS Rudrapur, U.S. Nagar, on behalf of the State, has filed the counter affidavit, in paragraph 11 whereof, it has been stated that after lodging of the FIR by the applicant, the matter was investigated by the I.O. and during the course of investigation, it came into light that the applicant gave false information to the police in respect of the offence committed and he himself hitched the story with collusion of other accused persons and he, on his own wish, got operated his part of body (PENIS) and, therefore, the charge sheet against the applicant has been submitted before the court concerned U/s 120-B/201/203 IPC. During the course of investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses, namely, Farid, Rafiq Miyan, Adil Rahman and Ashraf U/s 161 Cr.P.C. It has also been stated that on the basis of the statements of the witnesses and other documentary evidence collected, he came to the conclusion that the charge is made out against the applicant under the aforesaid sections. On a careful perusal of the FIR lodged by the applicant, the counter affidavit filed by the State as well as on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the offences punishable under Sections 120-B/201/203 IPC are prima facie made out against the petitioner and the summoning order dated 19.8.2009 passed by the trial court is absolutely correct and justified on the basis of the evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the entire evidence and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made against the applicant and the statements of witnesses recorded by the I.O. u/s 161 Cr.P.C., are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the trial court has rightly summoned the petitioner. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 16, 2010 Rdang