IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 239/2009 Satpal & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & Anr. …….Respondents October 6, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Nandan Arya AGA for the State and Smt. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC) has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 23.4.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 297/2007, State v. Satpal & Ors. under Section 323/504/506/452/147/148 IPC and the revisional order dated 20.1.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 219/2008. Facts, in brief, are that respondent no. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC on 28.6.2006 before the Judicial Magistrate, Laksar against the petitioners with allegations that he had moved an application on 18.6.2005 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Laksar against the petitioners who were trying to encroach upon his land and making illegal mining activities and on 7.8.2005, SDM issued an order by virtue of which the petitioners were restrained from doing illegal mining activities. Thereafter on 14.8.2005, the son of respondent no. 2 Ran Vijay was coming along with his servant Jai Kumar from his field, then the petitioners had threatened them for dire consequences and thereafter at 9 pm on the same day, when the respondent no. 2 was sitting in his house, then the petitioners came there armed with Lathi Danda and firearms and fired upon the respondent no. 2. However, no injury was sustained by the respondent no. 2. Many people came at the place of occurrence and thereafter 2 the petitioners ran away from there. The police was informed about the incident but no action was taken by the police. Therefore, with these averments, an application under Section 156(3) CrPC was moved by the respondent no. 2 before the Magistrate, who directed the concerned police station to lodge the report and investigate into the case. Thereafter an FIR was lodged by the respondent no. 2, on the basis of which, a case was registered against the petitioners under the aforesaid sections. After the investigation, the I.O. submitted a chargesheet against the petitioners and thereafter the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the offence against the petitioners and issued the summoning order dated 23.4.2008 against them. The petitioners preferred a revision against the aforesaid summoning order dated 23.4.2008, which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide order dated 20.1.2009. Hence, this petition has been filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in this argument due to the reason that from the perusal of the contents of FIR, statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and other evidence collected by the I.O., a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners under the aforesaid sections. 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 prosecution as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. If the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and the statements of witnesses recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners have rightly been 3 summoned. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. It is well settled principle of law that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court should 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 trial court. Therefore, I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of Court. Hence, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 27.3.2009 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 6.10.2010 PRABODH