IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.35 OF 2006 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Ramavtar & others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents Dated: August 3, 2010 Sri Vinod Sharma, 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 to quash the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.1012 of 2005, State Vs. Shailendra Semwal & others, U/s 323 IPC, pending before the J.M., Rishikesh, District Dehradun. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 3.3.2005 the respondent no.2 along with his wife Smt. Santosh and daughter Km. Rashmi appeared in the court to attend the date of the case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and 498-A IPC. That as soon as the respondent no.2 appeared in the court, the petitioner no.2-Shailendra Semwal became aggressive and directed him that he is not empowered to speak in the court. Before this also, the petitioners used to threaten the respondent no.2 to send his daughter at her in-laws house. It was also stated that on that day at about 4:30 PM, as soon as he and his family members came out, the petitioners committed Marpit with him and his family due to which his wife and daughter severe injuries and the blood was also oozing out from the hand of complainant’s wife and even his daughter was not able to move her hand and further the complainant himself received the severe injuries, which also gets proved from the medical report. Thereafter the matter was investigated and during investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses and after completing the investigation, he filed 2 the charge sheet against the petitioners, on the basis of which the J.M. Rishikesh vide order dated 27.8.2005 took cognizance and summoned the petitioners u/s 323 IPC. Hence this petition. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State in which the averments made in the application have been denied. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that no offence is made out against them and the court below has wrongly summoned them. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the FIR lodged by the respondent no.2, the statements of the witnesses, namely, Ram Lal, Smt. Santosh, injured witness, Smt. Rashmi, injured witness, Darshan Lal, witness and Narayan Singh, witness and other witnesses, I find that the offences punishable u/s 323 IPC is 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 as that 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 witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners have been 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 application C482 is devoid of merits and is hereby accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 12.01.2006 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 3, 2010 Rdang