IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2006 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Prakash Lal Adlakha and another …………Applicants Versus State and another …………Respondents Dated: July 14, 2010 Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 None for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 9.8.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.4560 of 2005, by which the learned C.J.M. has taken the cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further prayed to quash the entire proceedings of the aforestated criminal case. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Vidhi Puri (respondent no.2) lodged the First Information Report at P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar against the petitioners alleging therein that on 23.3.2005 she was ousted from her matrimonial house, in her wearing clothes along with her two minor children, by the petitioner no.1 Prakash Adlakha (father-in-law), petitioner no.2 Rajesh Adlakha (husband) and co-accused Anil (brother-in-law) for not fulfilling demand of Rs.50,000/- and car. It is further stated that thereafter she came to her parental house and since then 2 she is living with her parents. It is further alleged that on 9.4.2005 the petitioners along with two other persons came at the house of her father and asked not to send the complainant in their house in case the demand of dowry is not fulfilled. When her father showed his inability to give the same, the petitioners became annoyed and started hurling abuses. After the petitioners went from the house, she went in the police station in the night to lodge the report but the police did not lodge her report. With the same averments, this F.I.R. was lodged by Smt. Vidhi Puri at P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar on 24.4.2005. On the basis of this F.I.R, a case under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the petitioners. Thereafter the matter was investigated by the I.O. and after completing the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. On the basis of the charge sheet, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar vide his order dated 9.8.2005 took the cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners. Against the said order dated 9.8.2005, the petitioners have preferred this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating the fact that the I.O. during the course of investigation has found sufficient evidence against the petitioners and on the basis of credible evidence, he has submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners. From a perusal of the contents of the First Information Report and after going through other papers available in file, I am of the view that prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections is made out against the petitioners. 3 Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused persons 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 in the First Information Report are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety as well as on the basis of the evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation, I am of the view that the charge sheet is rightly submitted against the petitioners and the petitioners are accordingly rightly 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. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The C482application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 15.2.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 14.07.2010 RG