IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.869 OF 2006 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Jeet Singh & another …………Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents Dated: July 26, 2010 Sri Manish Arora, 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 for quashing the summoning order dated 8.9.2006 and the entire proceedings in Case No.239 of 2006, Kunta Vs. Jeet Singh, U/s 452/323/504/506 IPC, pending before Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M. Laksar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 24.05.2006 at about 11 AM, the complainant Smt. Kunta was washing her clothes, at that time the petitioners and co-accused Smt. Smt. Siya came and enquired about her husband, who used to cut fodder from their field and they would not let her alive. On being informed by the complainant that her husband was not at home, the petitioner no.1 hit the complainant with his leg on which she ran inside her house and the petitioners and co- accused also came inside her house. Co-accused Smt. Siya dragged her out by holding her hairs while the petitioners started beating with fists and kicks. On hearing noise, Balwant and Buguli and other persons of village arrived there who intervened in the matter. The petitioner no.1 while going also took out a watch and Rs.320/- belonging to complainant’s husband and the petitioners went by threatening that she and her husband would be killed in future. The complainant tried to lodge the report however that could not be lodged. The complainant herself was examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. while the witness Buguli and Balwant were examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and she also produced the carbon copies of the report sent to Dy. SP and S.P. Haridwar. Learned 2 Civil Judge (J.D.)/.J.M., Laksar vide order dated 08.9.2006 after perusing the entire evidence on record, found the offences punishable u/s 452/323/504/506 IPC prima facie made out against the petitioners and accordingly summoned them. Assailing the said order and the entire proceedings before the trial court, the instant petition has been preferred. 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 complaint lodged by the respondent no.2, the statements of the complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of the witnesses, namely, Buguli and Balwant, recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., I find that the offences punishable u/s 452/323/504/506 IPC are 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 persons 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 complaint as well as the statements of complainant recorded u/s 200 and that of the witness recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., 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. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed in limine. Interim order dated 23.11.2006 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 26, 2010 Rdang