IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 756/2006 Masood Anwar …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 28, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. PS Rawat, 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 petitioner has prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 5.4.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Case No. 70/2006 under Section 406, 420, 506 IPC. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent no. 2 Harish Chandra lodged a complaint alleging that he had given Rs. 5,50,000/- to the petitioner for the decoration of his house under an agreement on 6.9.2005. Under the said agreement, the petitioner started the work in his house which continued till 2.11.2005, but thereafter the work was stopped by the petitioner. When the complainant went to the house of the petitioner and enquired from him and demanded his money back, then the petitioner threatened him for life and asked him not to visit his house in future for the money. After that petitioner did not do any work at the house of the complainant. The Complainant sent a legal notice to the petitioner but the petitioner did not return his money. The complainant also got evaluated the work done by the petitioner by the RK Consultant and came to know that the petitioner has done the work equivalent to Rs. 1,08,259.42. The police did not lodge the FIR of the respondent no. 2 and, therefore, he lodged the present complaint 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 under Section 406, 420, 506 IPC is made out against the petitioner and accordingly summoned him vide order dated 5.4.2006. 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 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 other documentary evidence produced by the complainant. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner; perusal of complaint, summoning order dated 5.4.2006, statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 CrPC 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 petitioner. 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. 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 petitioner has 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. 2 Interim order dated 16.10.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 28.7.2010 PRABODH 3