IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 24/2006 Har Prasad & Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & Ors. …….Respondents July 12, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioners 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 summoning order dated 24.1.2005 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 916/2004 Sadhu Ram v. Har Prasad under Section 447, 307, 504, 506 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 7.12.2004 at about 5 pm when the complainant Sadhu Ram was working in his field in Village Bahadurpur, then the petitioners along with their one companion has come to his filed. The third person can be identified after seeking him. They abused the complainant and threatened him to leave the field. On refusal by the complainant and after making his noise, petitioner Sarvan caused the injuries to the complainant with a knife in his neck with intention to kill him and the petitioner Har Prasad with intention to kill the complainant has pressed the rope on his neck. After hearing the noise, the people working in the nearby fields Faiyaz, Ramesh, etc came at the place of occurrence. Meanwhile the third person fired but the complainant escaped narrowly. Thereafter the petitioners and other unidentified person ran towards Baseri forest. The complainant was medically examined in the Laksar hospital. Next day, he gone to lodge the report but police did not lodge the report. Thereafter he gave an application to SP, Haridwar and when no action was taken against the accused, then he lodged the complaint against the accused. Statement of the complainant has been recorded under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of the witnesses Ramesh Chand, Faiyaz. Sethpal and Dr. Brahm Singh, who had medically examined the complainant were also recorded under Section 202 CrPC 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 and in view of the other documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Section 447, 307, 504, 506 IPC is made out against the petitioners and accordingly summoned them vide order dated 24.1.2005. Against this order, the petitioners preferred revision which was rejected by the IV FTC/Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide order dated 26.11.2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners due to the reasons that 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 and the injury report of the complainant and other documentary evidence produced by the complainant. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners; perusal of complaint, summoning order dated 24.1.2005, statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 CrPC, injury report of the complainant and other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case under the aforesaid Sections is made out against the petitioners. Even otherwise, 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. 2 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 12.1.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.7.2010 PRABODH 3