IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.714 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Yaad Ram and six others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: August 4, 2010 Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State 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 petitioner/applicant has sought quashing of the summoning order dated 13.12.2004 and the order dated 12.9.2005 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh in criminal case no.1143 of 2004, Satyawati v. Yaadram and others, u/s 406 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC). Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the entire material available on file. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Satyawati filed a complaint before Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh against the applicants stating therein that the marriage of the complainant and the applicant Yaadram Yadav was solemnized on 13.5.1990 in which her parents had given lot of household articles to the applicants. It is alleged that soon after the marriage she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the applicants for the demand of dowry. The applicants used to demand Rs.50,000/- from her. It is further alleged that on 15.7.2002 the applicants committed Marpeet with the complainant and thereafter on 17.7.2002 the applicants left her near a petrol pump in her wearing clothes 2 and threatened her that if she will return back without Rs.50,000/- then she will have to face dire consequences. It is further alleged that the applicants have kept her Stridhan and even after her repeated requests they have not returned the same to her. Thereafter, the complainant sent a registered notice through her counsel to the applicants which was also served upon them but even after service of notice the applicants did not return her Stridhan. It is further alleged that the entire stridhan of the complainant viz. two fans, one pressure cooker, cooking gas, a trunk, double bed, mattresses of double bed, utensils, two watches, gold and silver jewellery and clothes are in the possession of the applicants. With these averments, Smt. Satyawati filed a complaint against the applicants in the court, which was registered as Case No.1143 of 2004 u/s 406 of IPC. In support of the complaint, the complainant examined herself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Rajpal and Govind Singh were got examined. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the material available, learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh vide order dated 13.12.2004 summoned the applicant. Against the said order dated 13.12.2004, the applicants filed their objections dated 27.5.2005 before Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, which were also rejected by Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh vide order dated 12.9.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the summoning order dated 13.12.2004 and the order dated 12.9.2005, the applicants have preferred the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint and the statement of the complainant Smt. Satyawati recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of Rajpal and Govind Singh recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and after going through other papers available in file, I am of the view that prima facie a case under Section 406 of IPC is made out against the applicants. 3 Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as 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 complaint and the statement recorded u/Ss 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the applicants 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 C482 application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 30.8.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 4.8.2010 RG