IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.823 OF 2006 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Kamal Singh Bisht …………Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents Dated: July 26, 2010 Sri Ramji Srivastava, Adv. for the applicant Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 Smt. Prabha Naithani, Adv. for the respondent no.2 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 5.6.2004 as well as to quash the further proceedings in Criminal Case No.169 of 2004, NS Panwar Vs. Kalam Singh Bisht U/s 407/420/468 IPC, pending before J.M. I, Dehradun. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2 obtained a contract from the Government for supplying bone powder and dregs of Neem and for this purpose, he had engaged the petitioner’s vehicle. That the Seven Block Development Officers made the payment of the carrying out the aforesaid work to the petitioner by way of seven drafts, however the petitioner did not handed over those drafts to the respondent no.2 and he, in connivance with the Block Development Officers, made forgery of Rs.3,41,197/-. Further, the respondent no.2 through the petitioner sent 404 bags for supply at Bhatwari, however the petitioner supplied only 130 bags and rest of the 274 bags amounting to Rs.31715/- were sold by the petitioner 2 somewhere, due to which the respondent no.2 had to bear that loss. Further, the petitioner had already taken Rs.76,140/- in advance from the respondent no.2. Hence it was stated that the petitioner received Rs.4,49,052/- fraudulently and by making forgery. The respondent no.2 tried to lodge the report but that could not be lodged hence he moved the complaint. The complainant was himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. while the witness Amar Singh Kashyap was examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Learned J.M. First, Dehradun vide order dated 05.6.2004 after perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the offences punishable u/s 407/420/468 IPC prima facie made out against the petitioner and accordingly summoned him. Assailing the said order and entire proceedings before the trial court, the instant petition has been preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no offence is made out against him and the court below has wrongly summoned the petitioner. 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 witness, namely, Amar Singh Kashyap, recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., I find that the offences punishable u/s 407/420/468 IPC are prima facie made out against the petitioner on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the petitioner 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 3 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 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. 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. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 26, 2010 Rdang