IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.968 OF 2010 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Smt. Gurmeet Kaur & others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand & another …………Respondents Dated: October 8, 2010 Sri Dinesh Chauhan, Adv. for the applicants Sri Nandan Arya, AGA for the State/respondent no.1 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 27.11.2009 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3637 of 2009, State Vs. Har Kishan Dayal Singh & others, U/s 498-A/323/504/506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act {hereinafter to be referred as the Act}, pending before the court of 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. Baljeet Kaur moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the CJM Rudrapur on 17.7.09 stating therein that she was married with co- accused Har Kishan Dayal Singh on 24.4.2005 as per Sikh rituals, however soon after the marriage, the petitioners and co-accused started harassing her physically and mentally for bringing Rs.1.00 lacs in cash and a Car in dowry. When she resisted to it, several times she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the petitioners. On 06.07.2009, ultimately she was ousted by the petitioners in her worn clothes. Later on 7.7.09, the petitioners and co-accused came at her parental house and started forcefully taking her away with them and all of them beaten her with fists and kicks and also demanded Rs.1.00 lacs and Car in dowry, however somehow her parents saved her from the 2 accused. On the next day, she got herself medically examined and the medical report was also annexed with the said application. On the said application, learned Magistrate directed to register and investigate the matter and accordingly, the FIR was lodged on 06.8.2009 at 1:10 PM. Thereafter the matter was investigated and after completing the investigation, the I.O. filed the charge sheet against the petitioners and co-accused u/s 498-A/323/504/506 IPC and 3/4 of the Act, on the basis of which learned C.J.M. US Nagar on 27.11.2009 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 complaint 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/323/504/506 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. 3 For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merits and is hereby accordingly dismissed in limime. (Dharam Veer, J.) October 8, 2010 Rdang