IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.588 OF 2007 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Smt. Brahaspati Devi & others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents Dated: July 13, 2010 Sri Rajendra Kotiyal, Adv. for the applicants Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 Sri Ramji Srivastava, 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 16.10.2004 passed by Special J.M. First Class, Tehri Garhwal and also to quash the proceedings in Crl. Case No.128/2004, Sunder Lal Vs. Smt. Brahaspati Devi & others, U/s 147/323/354/504/ 506/395/457 IPC. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that Sunder Lal -respondent no.2 preferred a complaint stating therein that on 18.2.2004, his son Mahesh got married with daughter of petitioner no.1-Brahaspati Devi, namely, Km. Rajeshwari and the marriage was registered on 21.2.2004 at Dehradun. Due to this marriage, the accused persons were having enmity with the complainant as a result of which, at the instant of petitioner no.1, petitioners 2 to 18 lodged a false report against the complainant and his family members with regard to taking away of Km. Rajeshwari by them and the petitioners also committed Marpit with the son of complainant. On 23.2.2004, when the complainant 2 was locked in the custody of Patwari Halka, on that night, all the petitioners being armed with Mashal, Lathi-Dandas entered inside the room of complainant by breaking the door and committed Marpit with complainant’s wife Amra Devi, daughter Veena and Km. Uma (daughter’s daughter) with Lathis-Dandas and with the mal-intention, they torn their clothes, hurled filthy abuses, broke the articles lying there and they also looted Rs.15,000/-, a golden earring of Rs.8,000/- and a Timaniya of Rs.18,000/- and caused serious injuries to them. Further, after about 1¼ month of that incident on 5.4.2004 at about 3:30 PM, all the accused persons entered inside the house of complainant and uttered caste indicated words. This incident was witnessed by Smt. Amra Devi, Meena and Km. Uma as well as other persons. On 7.4.04, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class New Tehri directed the Naib Tehsildar Pratap Nagar to enquire into the matter and register the case, however even after expiry of seven months, no case was registered, hence the complainant was forced to lodge the instant complaint. The complainant, in support of his case, got himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. while u/s 202 Cr.P.C., he got examined the witnesses, namely, Smt. Amra Devi, Smt. Veena Devi and Km. Uma Devi, who too in their oral evidence, corroborated the commission of incident as well as supported the contents of the complaint. In the documentary evidence, the injury reports of Smt. Amra Devi and Beena Devi were produced. On perusing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, learned Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tehri Garhwal vide order dated 16.10.2004 took cognizance and summoned the petitioners under Sections 147/323/354/504/506/395/ 457 IPC. Assailing that order, the petitioners have filed the instant petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that no offence is made out against them and the 3 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 complaint filed by the complainant, the statement of the complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., namely, Smt. Amra Devi, Smt. Veena Devi and Km. Uma and the injury reports of Smt. Amra Devi and Beena Devi, the offences punishable u/s 147/323/354/504/506/395/457 IPC, 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 of the accused 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/Judge. If the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the statements recorded of complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. as well as the documentary evidence brought on record, 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 merit 4 and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 20.08.2007 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 13, 2010 Rdang