IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.998 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Samarpal Singh …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand …………Respondent Dated: July 27, 2010 Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the applicant 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 charge sheet dated 5.9.2006 under Sections 467/468 and 471 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC) as well as the summoning order dated 9.10.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in criminal case no.705/2006. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. Brief facts of the case are that Jagjivan Ram, a press reporter, lodged a report at P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar stating therein that the applicant/accused Samarpal Singh is a permanent resident of Village Sahaspuri, Post Khas, Tehsil Thakudwara, District Muradabad, U.P. It is alleged that the applicant has got prepared a domicile certificate of Village Raipur, Postkhas, Tehsil Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand by placing fake documents. It is further alleged that, in the family register, name of the wife of the applicant is shown as 2 Omwati, however, in fact the applicant is unmarried. It is further alleged that the applicant is getting Special B.T.C. training at Bhimtal by way of forged domicile certificate. With the same averments, the FIR was got registered against the applicant under Sections 467/468/471 of IPC. After lodging of the F.I.R., the matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet in the court against the applicant under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC on which the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur vide order dated 9.10.2006 took the cognizance against the applicant and he was accordingly summoned in the trial court. Against the said charge sheet and the summoning order dated 9.10.2006, the applicant has preferred the present C482 application before this Court. State has filed the counter affidavit of Sri J.S. Garbyal, Senior Sub Inspector, P.S. Kotwali Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in which it is specifically stated that that applicant is permanent resident of Sahaspuri, Tehsil Thakurdwara, District Moradabad and is temporarily residing at Village Raipur, Tehsil Jaspur, District U.S. Nagar in his brother-in-law’s house and was got obtained his education at the said place. At this relevant point of time by way of forgery he got registered his name in the Family Register of Village Raipur and also registered name of Omwati as his wife and on the basis of aforesaid forged document and affidavit submitted before the Tehsildar, Kashipur he had obtained permanent resident Certificate and Schedule Caste Certificate as well as other certificates. However, the applicant is an unmarried person. It is further stated that as per the statement of the villagers and report of the Tehsildar Jaspur, no movable or immovable property is registered in the name of the applicant or his father Harwansh Singh S/o Phool Singh and the property purchased as shown by the applicant is in the name of Surja 3 Singh, who is the father of Jeet Singh (brother-in-law of applicant) and no registered sale deed was shown. From a perusal of the contents of the First Information Report and the counter affidavit, I am of the view that prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections is 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 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 First Information Report are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the applicant has 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 6.12.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 27.07.2010 RG