IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.825 OF 2006 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Surya Pratap Singh & others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents Dated: July 29, 2010 Sri Gopal Krishna, Adv. for the applicants Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the summoning order dated 28.9.2006 as well as the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.3130 of 2006, Sohan Singh Vs. Ramesh Chandra & others, U/s 147/148/420/504/506 IPC, pending before Addl. C.J.M., Kashipur, Distt. US Nagar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the case of the complainant/respondent no.2 is that the petitioners vide agreements dated 31.5.2005, 29.6.2005 and 11.7.2005, the petitioners’ agreed to purchase the land of complainant and co-share holders @Rs.7.00 lacs per acre. However the sale deed was executed less than the amount agreed between them. After the mutation, the complainant and co-share holders asked the petitioners to pay the amount @Rs.7.00 lacs per acre, however the difference of amount was not paid and the sale deeds were executed on the lesser amount. Further on 13.8.2006 at about 12 PM, the petitioners with the common intention, came in the house of complainant and co-share holders, and they being armed with weapons, hurled filthy abuses and also threatened to their lives. The complainant Sohan Singh got himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. while the witnesses, Avtar Singh and Harbhajan Singh were examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C.. Vide order dated 2 28.9.2006, the court below summoned the petitioners u/s 147/148/420/406/504/506 IPC. Hence this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that no offence is made out against them and the court below has wrongly summoned them. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the complaint lodged by the respondent no.2, the statements of the complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of the witnesses, namely, Avtar Singh and Harbhajan Singh, recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., I find that the offences punishable u/s 147/148/420/406/504/506 IPC are prima facie made out against the petitioners on the basis of the above- said discussion and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the petitioners to face trial. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as that of the accused persons 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 as well as the statements of complainant recorded u/s 200 and that of the witness recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., 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. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merits and is hereby accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 31.10.2006 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 29, 2010 Rdang