IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.458 OF 2007 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) B.S. Chauhan S/o Madhav Singh …………Applicant Versus State and another …………Respondents Dated: July 07, 2010 Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the applicant has sought quashing of the order dated 19.2.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.433 of 2007, relating to offences punishable under Sections 342, 388, 392, 504 and 506 of IPC as well as to quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. Brief facts of the case are that Ravindra Kumar (respondent no.2) filed a complaint against the applicant B.S. Chauhan in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on 22.1.2007 with the allegations that on 15.1.2007 one Kalu Ram came to the house of respondent no.2 and offered to sell his land. It was mutually agreed that the sale deed will be executed within six months. It is alleged that the applicant B.S. Chauhan, Inspector, Laksar, illegally intervened in the matter of land and summoned respondent no.2 on 15.1.2007 at 6:30 PM. One S.I. and three constables were deputed by the applicant to bring the 2 respondent no.2 in the police station. It is further alleged that the applicant kept respondent no.2 in the police custody. He hurled abuses to the respondent no.2 and also tortured him and made a demand of Rs.2.00 Lacs failing which respondent no.2 was threatened to be implicated in a false case. It is further alleged that after giving a sum of Rs.1.00 Lac to the applicant, respondent no.2 was let free. Applicant also threatened respondent no.2 for dire consequences in case he takes any legal action against the applicant. Thereafter on 18.1.2007, respondent no.2 reported the said incident to National Human Rights Commission, Delhi by fax and also moved an application before S.S.P. on 19.1.2007. Thereafter, the complainant filed the present complaint dated 22.1.2007 before the CJM, Haridwar, which was registered as Criminal Case No.433 of 2007 under Sections 342, 388, 392, 504 and 506 of IPC against the applicant. The complainant in support of his case got himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and also examined Vijendra Singh and Raj Singh u/s 202 Cr.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar vide his order dated 19.2.2007, took cognizance against the applicant and directed him to appear before the court on 21.3.2007 to face the trial. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 19.2.2007, the applicant has preferred the present C482 application before this Court. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the complainant in which the averments made in the C482 application have been denied. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that on 15.1.2007 the applicant had summoned the respondent no.2 in the police station on the complaint moved by one Kalu Ram against the respondent no.2. Thereafter 3 compromise had taken place between respondent no.2 Ravindra Kumar and Kalu Ram. This argument of learned counsel for the applicant itself corroborates the fact that on 15.1.2007 the respondent no.2 was called in the police station by the applicant. On the basis of the complaint dated 22.1.2007 and the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and other witnesses, namely, Vijendra Singh and Raj Singh, it transpires that on the alleged date viz. 15.1.2007 the respondent no.2 was summoned in the police station where he was tortured and threatened by the applicant for the demand of Rs.2 Lacs and when the respondent no.2 gave Rs.1 Lac to the applicant then only the respondent no.2 was let free by the applicant. Further, the complainant besides examining himself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. also examined Vijendra Singh and Raj Singh u/s 202 Cr.P.C. who have also corroborated the contents of the complaint. On a careful perusal of the contents of complaint; statement of the complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. as well as the statements of Vijendra Singh and Raj Singh recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and other papers available on record, I am of the view that prima facie a case under Sections 342, 388, 392, 504 and 506 IPC is clearly made out against the applicant. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused person 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., the High 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. On the basis of the complaint as well as the statement recorded 4 u/s 200 Cr.P.C. of complainant Ravindra Kumar and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. of witnesses Vijendra Singh and Raj Singh, I am of the view that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant under the aforesaid sections and the applicant has accordingly 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 21.11.2007 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 07.07.2010 RG