IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.399 OF 2005 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Hari Narayan Swami and twelve others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: July 27, 2010 Mr. H.C. Bisht, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Adv. holding brief of Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.), the petitioners/applicants has sought quashing of the summoning order dated 8.12.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Complaint Case No.1177/2004, Jagpal v. Haridas and others, under Sections 147, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 and 427 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC) as well as quashing of the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. In brief, the facts of the case are respondent no.2 Jagpal Shastri filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar against the applicants and two other co-accused stating therein that on 8.7.2001 at about 10:30 AM the applicants and two other co-accused trespassed into the resident of the complainant and assaulted him by sticks and dandas and gave filthy abuses to him. It is also alleged that the applicants and other co-accused threatened him for 2 life and also damaged the water and electric meter and other household goods at his residence. On hearing the alarm of the complainant, Annu, Anilu, Pande and Rati Pal reached at the spot, who, witnessed the incident and also saved the complainant from the applicants. A report to this effect was lodged by the complainant in the police station and thereafter an application was also moved by him before S.S.P., Haridwar but no action was taken on the same. Thereafter, this complaint was filed by the respondent no.2/complainant in the court of J.M., Haridwar on 1.10.2004, which was registered as Criminal Complaint Case No.1177 of 2004. The complainant in support of his complaint got himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Annu and Anilu were got examined. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the material available, learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, vide order dated 8.12.2004 summoned the applicants and other co-accused under Sections 147, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 and 427 of IPC. Against the said order dated 8.12.2004, the applicants have preferred the present C482 application before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of Annu and Anilu recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and upon perusal of the injury report and supplementary report and considering the fact that fracture of right side nasal bone was found in X-ray report of the complainant, I am of the view that prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections is made out against the applicants. 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. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court 3 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 complaint and the statement recorded u/Ss 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the applicants 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 C482 application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 30.6.2005 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 27.07.2010 RG