IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 575/2006 Manoj Tyagi & Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 20, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 522/2005 Smt. Vandana Tyagi v. Manoj Tyagi & Anr. under Section 406 IPC pending in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) II/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent no. 2 Smt. Vandana Tyagi lodged a complaint against the petitioners under Section 406, 498A, 504, 506 IPC alleging that she was married to petitioner no. 1 Manoj Tyagi on 17.1.1996 as per Hindu rites and her parents had spent rupees three lakhs in the marriage and had given articles as stridhan as stated in the complaint. But her in-laws were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage and they started demanding more dowry and for this reason she was being harassed by her in-laws and on 10.4.2004, she was beaten and was ousted from the house. On 15.1.2005, on hearing the news of death of her father-in-law when she came at the house of her in-laws along with her son and father, then the petitioners snatched her son and misbehaved with her and also with her father and forced them to go. She has been living along with her father since 10.4.2004. Even her stridhan have not been returned and on 19.9.2005 when she asked the petitioners to returned her stridhan, then she was abused and threatened by the petitioners before the court premises of Family Court. Learned trial court after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Section 406 IPC is made out against the petitioners/accused and accordingly summoned them vide order dated 31.1.2006. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners due to the reasons that averments made in the complaint are corroborated by the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC and other documentary evidence produced by the complainant. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners; perusal of complaint, summoning order dated 31.1.2006, statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 CrPC and other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case under Section 406 is made out against the petitioners. Even otherwise, the dispute involves factual question which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. If the allegations made and the evidence oral as well as documentary produced against the accused and the statements of witnesses are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners have rightly been summoned by the trial court. 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. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 2 Interim order dated 21.7.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 20.7.2010 PRABODH 3