IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.52 OF 2009 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) 1. Shiv Kumar 2. Dheeraj …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand & another …………Respondents (2) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.722 OF 2008 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Smt. Sweety Swami …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another …………Respondents (3) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.22 OF 2009 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Smt. Madhu Bhola …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another …………Respondents Dated: July 21, 2010 Sri Lalit Sharma, Adv. for the applicants in all the petitions Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 Sri Yogesh Pandey, Adv. for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. These three criminal applications have arisen out of a common summoning order and the issue to be decided in these petitions is one and the same, hence they all are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2 These criminal applications, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), are directed for quashing the common summoning order-dated 24.4.2008 passed by the Addl. CJM, Haldwani, District Nainital and also to quash the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.1850/2008, State Vs. Dheeraj & others, U/s 498-A/323/506 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Rashi-respondent no.2 lodged an FIR stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner Dheeraj Bhola on 29.3.2007 as per Hindu RITES and in the marriage, her parents gave dowry according to their status. However, the petitioners were not satisfied with the given dowry and soon after the marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the petitioners due to non-fulfillment of Rs.10.00 lacs in cash and a Car in dowry. Her parents tried to persuade the petitioners but all were in vain. Thereafter, Rs.1.50 lacs and Rs.1.00 lacs were given in cash by her parents to the petitioners however after lapse of a short time, she was again subjected to mental harassment as a result of non- fulfillment of demand of dowry. Ultimately, on 17.12.2007, the petitioners ousted her from her in-laws house in her worn clothes and refused to keep her till the demanded dowry is not made good. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and during the investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of victim Smt. Rashi and witnesses P.K. Anand, Neelam Anand, Ajay Chandok, Smt. Mohita and other witnesses and after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet in the court against the petitioners. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.4.2008, learned Addl. CJM, Haldwani took cognizance and proceeded to summon the 3 petitioners to face trial U/s 498-A/323/506 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence these petitions. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that no offence is made out against them and the petitioners have been wrongly summoned by the court below. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant Smt. Rashi, the statement of the complainant and that of the witnesses, namely, P.K. Anand, Neelam Anand, Ajay Chandok, Smt. Mohita and other witnesses, who in their statements have amply corroborated the prosecution story, the offences punishable u/s 498- A/323/506 IPC and one punishable u/s 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, are prima facie made out against the petitioners on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has rightly proceeded to summon the petitioners to face trial. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as 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 FIR as well as the statements of the complainant and that of other witnesses recorded u/s 161 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. 4 For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in these applications. All the three applications moved under Section C482 Cr.P.C. are devoid of merits and are hereby dismissed. Interim orders dated 20.11.2008, 13.1.2009 and 09.02.2009 are vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 21, 2010 Rdang