IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.590 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Ashwani Kumar Saini …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and two others …………Respondents Dated: July 19, 2010 Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent nos.1 and 2 Mohd. Umar, Adv. holding brief of Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Adv. for respondent no.3 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 9.5.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Criminal Case No.1316 of 2006, State v. Ashwani Kumar, whereby the applicant has been summoned under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. It has further been prayed to quash the charge sheet related to aforesaid case as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.3 Bhupal Singh, General Manager, Mahalakshmi Sugar Mill Ltd. Moved an application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Roorkee alleging therein that on 24.11.2001 the applicant has entered into an agreement with the respondent no.3 for supplying 14000 quintals cane seed to the company and for that an amount of 2 Rs.1,25,000/- was given in advance to the applicant by the respondent no.3. It is alleged that neither the applicant has supplied the cane seed to the company nor he has refunded the money given in advance to him in lieu of the cane seed. It is further stated that the respondent no.3 has gone to lodge the report about the said incident in the police station Jhabrera but his report could not be lodged. Thereafter, he moved an application to S.S.P., Haridwar but no action was also taken on the same. Thereafter, this application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by Mahalakshmi Sugar Mill Ltd. through its General Manager, Sri Bhupal Singh. On this application, Civil Judge (J.D.), Roorkee ordered for lodging of the FIR against the applicant. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against the applicant under Sections 406 and 420 IPC in the court on which Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Roorkee vide order dated 9.5.2006 taken the cognizance against the applicant and thereafter criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant. Against the said charge sheet, summoning order dated 9.5.2006 and the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant, the applicant has preferred this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the complainant in which the averments made in the C482 application have been denied. From a perusal of the contents of the First Information Report and after going through other papers available in file, prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections is made out against the applicants. 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 3 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 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 C482application, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 27.7.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 19.07.2010 RG