IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting (Chapter VIII Rule 32(2) (b) Description of the Case. Criminal Misc. Appl. No. 474 of 2006 Date of Decision : 30/6/2006 A.F.R. (Approved for reporting) Not approved for reporting Date:- 30.06.2006 Initial of Judge Note : Bench Reader will attach this at the top of first page of the judgment when it is put up before the Judge for signature. IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.474 of 2006 1. Mrs. Ganga Devi W/o Sri Shankar Dutt Rekhari 2. Mr. Satish Shankar Dutt Rikhari 3. Miss. Deepa Shankar Dutt Rikhari All R/o Narmada B-28, Anu Shakti Nagar Mumbai – 400 094 … Applicants Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. State Officer Through Investigating Officer Police Station Ramnagar, Nainital 3. Smt. Tara Rikhari D/o Sri Prem Ballabh Pant R/o Teda Road, Lakhan Pur, Rampur Police Station – Ramnagar, Nainital … Respondents. Sri R.S. Sammal and Sri Vishal Singh, learned counsel for the applicants Sri Amit Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the chargesheet No. 210 of 2006 dated 23.02.2006 and cognizance order dated 10.06.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar in Criminal Case No. 242 of 2006 State Vs. Satish Rakhadi & others u/s 498-A I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act. Brief facts for the disposal of this petition are that marriage in between the respondent No. 3-Smt. Tara Rikhari and the applicant No. 2-Sri Satish Shankar Dutt Rikhari solemnized on 2nd December, 2003. The marriage tool place at Ramnagar, Nainital. After the marriage, the in-laws who were residing at Bombay started harassing the respondent No. 3 in connection with dowry and when the respondent No.3 fell ill, the-laws demanded the money for the payment of the bills. Thereafter, she was sent to Ram Nagar where she had given a birth to the child and the parents of the respondent No. 3 informed about this to the accused-applicants. The accused- applicants came at Ramnagar but they refused to take the respondent No. 3 with them. The in-laws continued their demand of dowry. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 had falsely stated that they have managed the demanded amount. The accused-applcants came at Ramnagar and the respondent No. 3 had stated that they will meet their demand of dowry within a period of 2 or three months. The accused-applicants took the respondent No. 3 with them to Bombay and threatened the parents of the victim that if their demand of dowry would not be fulfilled within 20 or 25 days they will leave her at Ramangar. When the demand of the dowry could not be met, the accused-applicants committed marpeet with the victim during the period when she was in Bombay. The matter was investigated and chargesheet was submitted. Thereafter, the cognizance was taken and feeling aggrieved by the said order, this present petition has been filed. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that whenever the girl was brought to her parental house she was brought on flight and in view of the above it cannot be presumed that she had been treated cruelly. It was contended that there were only oral averments against the present accused-applicants, as such, the complaint is totally false. In R.D. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1960 SC 866, the court has summarized the following three grounds on which the court can exercise the jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. :- i. where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; ii. where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not constitute the offence alleged; iii. where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. See State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another, 2003 6 SCC 195. In the case, the F.I.R. disclose prima-facie offence. It cannot be quashed on that ground. Whereas the category is concerned as indicated above, it is important to bear to mind the distinction between the case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. While exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C., this court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry 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 judge. While exercising the jurisdiction this court should not act on the averments of the defence which are not on record till the time the cognizance has been taken and which are the defence on behalf of the accused. The court cannot consider the annexure to the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. which cannot be termed as evidence while it is proved or dis- proved by the trial court. The Apex Court in Banhisikha Roy Vs. Somnath Roy & other reported in 2006 (1) SCC (Cri) p/625 held that the contents of the complaint filed before the Magistrate specifically states the allegations which constitute an offence. The Hon’ble Apex Court while setting aside the order of the High Court had held that those allegations of cruelty meted out to the appellant wife on demand of dowry are clear and the High Court was not justified in quashing the F.I.R. In the instant case the accusation made in the F.I.R. and the chargesheet clearly reveals that the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. clearly establish the guilt against the present accused-applicants. As such, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-applicants. In view of the above, the petition devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. (J. C. S. Rawat, J.) 30th June, 2006 Shiv