IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 726/2005 Ghanshyam Singh Rajpur …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Ors. …….Respondents July 15, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. BS Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioners have prayed for quashing the cognizance order dated 2.2.2005 under Section 406 IPC and Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh in criminal case no. 1204/2004, Smt. Salini v. Dayashankar & Ors. and also to quash the entire proceedings of said case. Facts, in brief, are that on 5.7.2004, respondent no. 3 Smt. Salini Rajpur lodged an FIR with the averments that she was married to Daya Shankar on 10.6.2000 as per Hindu rites. The petitioner Ghanshyam Singh is her father-in-law. A girl child born from the said wedlock. After six months of her marriage, her in-laws started harassing her for dowry and on 2.7.2004 she was badly beaten by her husband and she is being threatened to be divorced and ultimately respondent no. 3 had to leave along with her daughter from the house of her in-laws and thereafter she has been residing in her maternal house. Thereafter she also filed a complaint with these averments before the Magistrate. Learned trial court after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner/accused and accordingly summoned them vide order dated 2.2.2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner due to the reasons that learned trial court has found that the averments made in the complaint are corroborated by the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners; perusal of the contents of FIR, complaint and the impugned order dated 2.2.2005 and other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case under the aforesaid section is made out against the petitioner. 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 and the evidence oral as well as documentary produced against the accused and the statements of witnesses 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. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 20.10.2005 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 15.7.2010 PRABODH 2