IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.952 of 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Chetan Sehgal …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: August 12, 2010 Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State Mr. Sandeep Tandon, 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 petitioner/applicant has sought quashing of the charge sheet dated 18.6.2006 as well as the proceedings of criminal case no.117 of 2006, State v. Chetan Sehgal, relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire available in file. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Rahul Sehgal moved an application u/s 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. against the applicant and another with the allegations that the respondent no.2 is the Secretary of Pushpawati Memorial Charitable Society and the applicant was the Chairman of the said Trust. The Trust is having an account no.16464 in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajpur Road Branch, Dehradun, which is operated by the joint signatures of respondent no.2 and applicant and the cheque books, account book and all other documents related to the said account were in the possession of the applicant. It is alleged 2 that when respondent no.2 checked the statement of bank account, he found that some cheques have been encashed by the applicant by using forged signatures of respondent no.2 and the applicant has grabbed Rs.1,02,000/- of the Trust. With these averments, the present FIR was lodged at P.S. Kotwali Dehradun by respondent no.2. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet in the court against the applicant u/Ss 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, on the basis of which, learned Magistrate summoned the applicant and criminal proceedings were initiated against him. Against the said charge sheet and the criminal proceedings, the applicant has preferred the present application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the First Information Report and after going through other papers available in file, 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 as well as on the basis of the evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation, I am of the view that the charge sheet is rightly submitted against the applicant and the criminal proceedings are accordingly rightly initiated against him. 3 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 28.11.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.8.2010 RG