IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.834 OF 2005 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Smt. Sunita Sharma & another …………Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & others …………Respondents Dated: July 21, 2010 Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, Adv. for the applicants Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the summoning order dated 13.7.2005 and also to quash the proceedings in Case No.2661 or 2005 U/s 364/447/511 IPC, pending before CJM, Haridwar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by the respondent no.2-Satish Chandra stating therein that respondent no.3 Khiladi Singh was missing from his house since 5.3.2003. The allegation made against the petitioner no.2-Ranveer Sharma was that he illegally occupied Kapil Dharamshala and also tried to occupy some other properties illegally and he is a shrewd person. Hence, the FIR was lodged on the basis of suspicion that the said Khiladi Singh was abducted by the petitioner-Ranveer Singh. The FIR was lodged on 4.4.2005. After that the matter was investigated and charge sheet was filed against the petitioners on the basis of which learned CJM, Haridwar vide order dated 13.7.2005 2 summoned the petitioners u/s 364/447/511 IPC. Hence this petition. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State in paragraph 11 whereof it has been stated that the victim Khiladi Singh was confined by the applicant/petitioner. Besides, a supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed by the State along with which the statement of victim Khiladi Singh, recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., has been annexed in which he has stated that the petitioners made him to have a cup of tea and after drinking the same, he became unconscious and when he regained his senses, he was in a forest. There, the petitioners Ranvir Sharma and his wife Sunita Sharma and two other accomplices threatened him to his life if he would be seen anywhere inasmuch as the victim Khiladi Singh did not want to give his house on rent to the petitioners. The victim was kept for four days at some unknown place. After about 4 days, the cord by which he was tied, became loose and somehow became free and thereafter he roamed so many places and then he informed in the Kotwali. In the statement of victim Khiladi Singh also recorded u/S 164 Cr.P.C., he fully corroborated his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that no offence is made out against them and the petitioners have been wrongly summoned by the court below. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the FIR filed by the respondent no.3, the statements of the victim Khiladi Singh recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., who fully corroborated the entire story, I find that the offences punishable u/s 364/447/511 IPC are prima facie made out against the petitioners on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the petitioners to face trial. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well 3 as of the accused 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 FIR as well as the statements of victim Khiladi Singh recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. 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. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 21, 2010 Rdang