IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Naresh Joshi …………Applicant Versus State and another …………Respondents Dated: July 14, 2010 Mr. R.S. Sammal, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for respondent no.1 None 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 2.8.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Khatima in Criminal Complaint Case No.1340 of 2005, Smt. Parvati Sonkar v. Naresh Chandra Joshi and others under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC), by which the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the applicant. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Parvati Sonkar filed a complaint against the petitioner and three unknown persons with the allegations that on 16.12.2004 at 4 PM, the petitioner Naresh Joshi called her husband Mahesh Sonkar and taken along with him. When up to 5 PM, her husband did not come back, she, in search of her husband, went in the farmhouse of the petitioner where she saw that the petitioner and three unknown persons, were beating her husband with kicks and fists. When she and her daughter 2 tried to save her husband then the petitioner and others also assaulted them. The petitioner and other co-accused hurled filthy abuses to them and the petitioner caused injuries on her hand with sharp edged weapon. It is also alleged that the petitioner and others also pelted stones on the complainant and her daughter due to which they also received injuries. It is further alleged that due to the injuries caused by the petitioner and others to her husband, blood oozed out from the mouth of her husband and his one teeth also got broken. It is further alleged that the petitioner and others also threatened her and her daughter for life. It is further alleged that the complainant gave report of the said incident along with the medical report in the police station but no action was taken on the same. Thereafter, she filed the complaint in the court against the petitioner and three unknown persons, which was registered as Complaint Case No.1340 of 2005 under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC against the petitioners and others. The complainant in support of her case got herself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and also examined her husband Mahesh Sonkar and daughter Deepika u/s 202 Cr.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the entire material available, learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima vide his order dated 2.8.2005, took the cognizance against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 2.8.2005, the petitioner has 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. Parvati Sonkar recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of Mahesh Sonkar and Deepika recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and the application moved by the complainant to S.S.P., Udham Singh Ngar, prior of the filing of present complaint and also considering the injuries sustained by the complainant’s side, 3 I am of the view that prima facie a case under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. 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 and the statement recorded u/Ss 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, 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 C482application, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 8.8.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 14.07.2010 RG