IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 188/2006 Gyanendra Singh & Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 15, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mohd. Azim, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioners have prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the CJM, Dehradun in criminal case no. 2387/2005, State v. Jagdeep Kumar & Ors. under Section 498A, 406, 506, 120B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also to quash the entire proceedings of said case. Facts, in brief, are that respondent no. 2 Smt. Meera lodged a report with PS Dalanwala on 31.8.2005 with the averments that she was married to co-accused Jagdeep Kumar on 27.3.2003 as per Hindu rites and the said marriage was also registered on 19.6.2003 with the Sub-Registrar. The petitioners and co-accused Jagdeep Kumar were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage and they started harassing and torturing respondent no. 2 and she was ousted from the house of her in- laws on 24.5.2005. Her husband also got ex parte decree for dissolution of their marriage vide order dated 7.12.2004. Her stridhan was also not returned. With these averments FIR was lodged against the petitioners and co-accused Jagdeep Kumar. After the investigation, the I.O. submitted the chargesheet against the petitioners and the co-accused. Thereafter the learned Trial Court summoned the accused/petitioners vide order dated 28.11.2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners due to the reasons that averments made in the FIR are corroborated by the statements of the witnesses recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 CrPC and other documentary evidence collected by the I.O. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners; perusal of impugned order dated 28.11.2005, statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case against the petitioners is made out under the aforesaid sections. The dispute involves factual question which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record. 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. If the allegations made and the evidence collected by the I.O. against the accused and the statements of witnesses are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners 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. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine. Interim order dated 28.3.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 15.7.2010 PRABODH 2