IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.39 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Dhiraj Kumar and five others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: August 4, 2010 Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, 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 summoning order dated 24.9.2005 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun as well as proceedings of criminal case no.500 of 2005, Smt. Kanta v. Radheyshyam and others, relating to offences punishable under Sections 147 and 379 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Kanta filed a complaint before Special Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun stating therein that the respondent no.2 and her husband Rajesh Kumar were having possession over the shop situated at Mohanpur, Smithnagar, P.O. Premnagar, Dehradun for last three years. It is further stated that the shop in question was purchased by the respondent no.2 and her husband Rajesh Kumar through the applicant Dhiraj Kumar. The respondent no.2 and her husband had paid the entire sale consideration but the applicant Dhiraj Kumar executed the sale deed in his name and gave assurance that he will execute 2 a power of attorney of shop in question in favour of respondent no.2 and her husband. It is further alleged that on 10.2.2004 at about 11 PM, he entered into the house of respondent no.2 to take the keys of the shop and committed marpeet with her and her husband. It is further alleged that on 24.2.2004 at 11 AM the applicants came to the shop and by cutting the lock of shop from iron machine, they forcibly took the possession of shop in question and also looted the goods of shop. With these averments, respondent no.2 Smt. Kanta filed this complaint in the court on 5.5.2004 against the applicants. In support of her complaint, the complainant examined herself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Jitendra Kumar and Darshan Lal were got examined. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the material available, learned Special Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun, vide his order dated 24.9.2005 summoned the applicants under Sections 147 and 379 of IPC. Against the said order dated 24.9.2005, the applicants have preferred the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint and the statement of the complainant Smt. Kanta recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of Jitendra Kumar and Darshan Lal 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 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 and the statement recorded 3 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 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 12.1.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 4.8.2010 RG