IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 1007/2006 Ajay …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents August 13, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Smt. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC) has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 21.9.2006 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3059/2006, State v. Ajay under Section 379 and 411 IPC pending in the Court of CJM, Haridwar. Facts, in brief, are that respondent no. 2 Mahesh Kumar lodged an FIR on 25.2.2006 with the averments that on 24.2.2006 he along with the petitioner and other friends had gone in the marriage of sister of Deepak Sharma, where at about 11pm, his NOKIA 1100 mobile phone having IMEI No. 953377000535556 and mobile phone no. 9897368033 was stolen by somebody. The respondent no. 2 noticed that the petitioner had left the place and when he tried to search him, he could not be traced out. He doubted on him. Next day i.e. on 25.2.2006, the said mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 and his friends. Thereafter the respondent no. 2 lodged the instant FIR. On the basis of this FIR, a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 379 and 411 IPC. After the investigation, the I.O. submitted a chargesheet against the petitioner, on the basis of which learned CJM, Haridwar has taken the cognizance of the offence against the petitioner vide order dated 21.9.2006. State has filed a counter affidavit, wherein the averments made in the FIR have been supported. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has 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 and 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 petitioner under the aforesaid sections. 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 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 petitioner has rightly been summoned. 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 hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 8.12.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.8.2010 PRABODH 2