IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.480 of 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Anwar Hussain and another …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: July 30, 2010 Mr. Tumul Nailwal, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State Mr. M.C. Pandey, 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 petitioners/applicants have sought quashing of the order dated 10.5.2005 and the summoning order dated 24.9.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Khatima in criminal case no.589 of 2006, Sawitri Devi v. Dorilal and others, relating to offences punishable under Sections 120B and 467 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC) as well as the entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire available in file. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Savitri Devi moved an application under Section 156(3) alleging therein that the co-accused namely Dorilal in connivance with the applicant Anwar Hussain, the then Supervisor Kanoongo and Sukhi Singh, Patwari (present applicants), in order to grab the land in question of her husband in his lifetime, made a wrong entry in the records 2 showing her land in the name of co-accused Dorilal and thereby committed fraud upon her. With these averments, Smt. Savirti Devi moved an application u/s 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and got registered a case crime no.1181 of 2004 with P.S. Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against the applicants. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, police submitted final report in the matter. Thereafter, the complainant filed the protest petition against the aforesaid final report on which the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima vide order-dated 10.5.2005 accepted the protest petition of the complainant and fixed a date i.e. 1.6.2005 for recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The complainant, in support of her case, got herself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Bhagwandas and Chunnilal were got examined. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the material available, learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, vide order dated 24.9.2005 summoned the applicants to face the trial u/Ss 120-B and 467 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 10.5.2005 and 24.9.2005, the applicants have preferred the present C482 application before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant Smt. Savitri Devi recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of Bhagwandas and Chunnilal recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. 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 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 complaint and the statement recorded u/Ss 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 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 applicants 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. 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 3.7.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 30.07.2010 RG