IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 797/2005 Rani Saini …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Ors. …….Respondents July 12, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 13.4.2005 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 198/2005, State v. Smt. Rani & Anr. under Section 9, 44, 49-B and 51 of Wild Life Prevention Act, 1972 pending before the CJM, Pauri Garhwal. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.4.2004 at about 5 pm when the respondent no. 3/Deputy Divisional Wild Life Conservator/Divisional Forest Officer, Garhwal Forest Division, Pauri along with other officers were on round in Pauri Forest Range, they arrested three persons namely Balu, Omi and Santu who had installed a tent camp in the forest range and two skin of Panthera Pardus (leopard), one iron trap used for trapping the wild animals and two lathis were recovered from these persons. Thereafter a H-2 complaint was lodged against the petitioner under Section 9, 44, 49-B & 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and registered as Range Case No. 1/Pauri/2004-2005. Thereafter statement of aforesaid three accused were recorded. When the question was asked to Balu that what they do with the animal skins, he replied that they sell the same to one woman named Rani (petitioner) at Delhi, Sabji Mandi, Sadar Bazar. Another accused Omi also replied the same. Thereafter investigation in the said matter was done by the respondent no. 3 and it was reported by him that the aforesaid accused persons sell these skins to the petitioner with the help of one lady Surpi. Thereafter a Complaint was lodged in the Court of CJM, Pauri Garhwal against the petitioner and the learned CJM, Pauri Garhwal, considering the evidence produced by the prosecution, issued the summoning order dated 13.4.2005 against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, no offence is made out against her. I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner as on the perusal of the materials available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is involved in a gang of persons who kill the wild animals of forest and sell their skins and other body parts at Delhi. State has also filed a counter affidavit of Sohan Lal, Sub- Divisional Forest Officer, Garhwal Forest Division, Pauri wherein the averments made in the complainant have been supported and at para 7, it has been stated that the petitioner was also arrested by the Rajasthan Police in connection with some other case and she is also involved in Rajasthan in the same type of crimes. It has also been stated in the affidavit that involvement of the accused/petitioner is well established from the statements of the accused persons namely Balu and Omi as well as from the investigation conducted by the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer. At present, the petitioner is in jail at Jaipur in connection with similar type of offence. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties; perusal of complaint, summoning order dated 13.4.2005, statements of co-accused Balu and Omi and other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case under the aforesaid Sections is made out against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the dispute involves factual question which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record. 2 Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the prosecution as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. If the allegations made and the evidence oral as well as documentary produced against the accused and the statements of witnesses are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner 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. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 18.11.2005 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.7.2010 PRABODH 3