IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.297 OF 2006 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Sawarna Singh & others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents Dated: July 16, 2010 Sri SK Mandal, Adv. for the applicants Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 Sri Vipul Sharma, 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 proceedings of Criminal Case No.1069 of 2005, Mahendra Singh Vs. Sawarana Singh & others, pending before II Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, US Nagar 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 Jasvinder Kaur, daughter of respondent no.2, was married with the petitioner no.1-Swarna Singh on 20.2.1996 as per Sikh rituals and the complainant gave dowry as per his status. However, the petitioners were not satisfied with the dowry given and for this reason, they started coercing her for bringing a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- more in dowry and on being failed to do so, she was subjected to mental and physical harassment. After about eight months, the petitioners ousted the daughter of respondent no.2 in her worn clothes and directed to come back only with 2 Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle in dowry. Further, on 29.11.2005 at about 8 AM, the petitioners came at the house of respondent no.2 where, while talking with the complainant, they became furious, started beating Jasvinder Kaur (daughter of respondent no.2) with fists and kicks. Meanwhile, on the noise raised by the complainant and his daughter, Nawalpreet Singh, Surendra Singh and other persons came and intervened, however the petitioners while going, also threatened the daughter of respondent no.2 that she would be killed if she would not get the dowry as demanded. The complainant thereafter went to lodge the report but his report was not lodged. Accordingly, the present complaint was moved before the trial court. In the court below, the complainant was examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. while his daughter Jasvinder Kaur and Nawalpreet Singh were examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Besides the oral evidence, in the documentary evidence, carbon copy of the application sent to SSP and original receipt of registry were also produced before the trial court. On perusing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, learned II Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, US Nagar vide order dated 9.1.2006 found that the oral and documentary evidence prima facie constitutes the offences against the petitioners and accordingly, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the petitioners to face trial u/s 498-A/323/506 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Assailing the entire proceedings before the trial court, the petitioners have filed the instant petition. 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 complaint filed by the complainant, the statements of the complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. as well as the statements of the witnesses, 3 namely, Jasvinder Kaur (victim) and Navalpreet Singh, offences punishable u/s 498-A/323/506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 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 and there is no reasonable ground or justification to quash the proceedings pending before the court below. 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. 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 produced by the complainant in support of the complaint, 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 and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 05.06.2006 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 16, 2010 Rdang