IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 418 of 2005 Khurshid Ahmad & others … Applicants Vs State of Uttaranchal & another … Respondents Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1052 of 2005, State Vs Nadem Ahmad & others pending in the court Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.03.2005, the deceased – Nazmeen catch fire from the heater while boiling milk on the heater and she was admitted in the Doon Hospital. The statement of the deceased was recorded by the Tehsildar, which reads as under:- “’kiFkiwoZd c;ku fn;k fd eSa vius ?kj eqfLye dkykSuh es jk=h dks ghVj ij nw/k xje djrs le; vpkud vkx yx x;h ftlesa eSa >qyl x;h] vkx vpkud yxh eq>s fdlh ij dksbZ 'kd ughs gSA” 3. Thereafter, she was taken to the Safdarjung Hospital, Dehli where, Sub-Divisional Magistrate recorded the statement of the deceased – Nazmeen. After lodging the First Information Report, the investigation was entrusted to Sri J.S. Bhandari and he submitted the chargesheet against the applicants before the court concerned. The learned Magistrate 2 on the receipt of the chargesheet issued summoning order against the applicants vide order dated 16.06.2005. 4. Feeling aggrieved against the said summoning order as well as proceedings initiated against them, the applicants preferred this petition before this Court. 5. Heard Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1, Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted before the Court that it is a case of custodial death. He has further submitted that the only evidence to prove this case is dying declaration, which was taken before the Tehsildar, Dehradun, which reads as under:- “’kiFkiwoZd c;ku fn;k fd eSa vius ?kj eqfLye dkykSuh es jk=h dks ghVj ij nw/k xje djrs le; vpkud vkx yx x;h ftlesa eSa >qyl x;h] vkx vpkud yxh eq>s fdlh ij dksbZ 'kd ughs gSA” 7. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the Investigation officer has falsely implicated the applicants in the case and the learned Magistrate without taken into consideration the dying declaration issued the summoning orders against the applicants. 8. Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has invited my attention towards para No. 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. He has stated that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi recorded the statement of Smt. Shajad mother of the deceased and on the 3 basis of her statement, the police authorities was directed to register the case against the applicants of dowry death. He has also taken plea in the counter affidavit that there was a demand of dowry and she went to her maternal home day before the incident. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 sent her daughter to her matrimonial home and on the same day the applicants set fire on her daughter. 9. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants relate to the factual aspect of the matter and that can be examined and assessed by the trial court during the course of trial. At this stage, I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the reliability of the evidence, which is yet to be adduced before the court during the course of the trial. The summoning order does not require a meticulous consideration of the evidence. The court in case, is satisfied from the papers produced before it and comes to the conclusion that there is a prima-facie case to proceed against the accused then it can take the cognizance and accordingly summon the accused persons. The chargesheet, which has been filed against the accused persons clearly disclose the offence and shows that the case against the petitioners is made out prima-facie. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal reported in 192 Supp. (1) SCC 335 has also observed “High Court is not justified in going into the disputed question of fact by appreciating the documents and evidence produced before it by treating them as evidence to hold the accused person as innocent because, it will amount to pre-trial of a criminal case under inherent powers of Court.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the same judgment has also observed that “High Court should not embark upon an enquiry 4 whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. The High Court may only examine whether the First Information Report or the complaint or the material collected by prosecution taken on their face value and accepted in entirety, prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused persons. 11. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in above decisions, I come to the conclusion that the trial court has committed no illegality by passing the impugned summoning orders and there is no flagrant miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of court in this case. 12. In view of the above, the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. 14. In case, if the petitioners appear before the trial court for obtaining their bails, the same shall also be disposed of by the court concerned expeditiously and without causing any unreasonable delay. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 27.03.2010 ASWAL 5