IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1012 OF 2006 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Jitendra Sahni & others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents Dated: August 11, 2010 Sri Siddhartha Sah, Adv. for the applicants Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 Sri VD Bisen, Adv. i/b Sri Harsh Sekho, Adv. for 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 charge sheet filed against the petitioners, summoning order dated 24.11.2006 and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.3121 of 2006, State Vs. Jitendra Sahni & others, U/s 498-A/504/506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act {hereinafter to be referred as the Act}, pending before CJM, US Nagar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Smt. Goldi was married with petitioner Jitendra Sahni on 13.12.2005 and the dowry was given by her parents as per status, however soon after the marriage, the petitioners started harassing her for getting Rs.2.00 lacs in cash and an Alto Car in dowry. On 23.2.2006 when her brother came to met complainant, the petitioners Jitendra, Deepak, Smt. Uma Sahni were hurling abuses and demanding the above-said articles and they also directed the complainant’s brother to fulfill the demand. On 10.3.2006 ultimately she was ousted in her worn clothes. Thereafter the matter was investigated and after completing the investigation, the I.O. filed the charge sheet against the petitioners u/s 498-A/504/506 IPC and 3/4 of the Act, on the basis of which learned CJM US Nagar on 24.11.2006 2 took cognizance and summoned the petitioners under the aforesaid sections. Hence this petition. 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 FIR lodged by the respondent no.2, the statements of the complainant and that of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., I find that the offences punishable u/s 498-A/504/506 IPC and 3/4 of the Act 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 FIR as well as the statements of witnesses 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. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merits and is hereby accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 11.12.2006 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 11, 2010 Rdang