IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.629 of 2005 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Ravindra Nath …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: August 9, 2010 Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State Mr. S.S. Chauhan, 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 order dated 2.5.2005 passed by Ist Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar as well as quashing of proceedings of criminal case no.19 of 2005, State v. Ravindra Nath, relating to offences punishable under Section 406/504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Vidhan Rai moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. against the applicant alleging that on 16.3.2002 the applicant mortgaged his 2.5 Acres of land, situated at Gurugaram to the complainant in Rs.60,000/- and assured to receive the same on payment of the aforesaid amount. It is alleged that on 14.3.2005 when the complainant was ploughing the said land, applicant Ravindra Nath along with one Atul Mandal came on the land and stopped him and also abused him. The applicant also told that he has sold the land to another person. With the same allegations, the application was moved by the complainant which got registered a Case Crime No.32 of 2005 with P.S. Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, relating to offences punishable under Sections 406/504 of IPC against the applicant. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated and, on completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted a charge sheet against the applicant under Section 406/504 of IPC, on the basis of which, learned Ist Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, vide order dated 2.5.2005, summoned the applicants. Against the said order dated 2.5.2005, 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 application u/s 156(3) 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 complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety as well as on the basis of the documentary evidence, 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 21.9.2005 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 9.8.2010 RG