IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.810 OF 2005 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Kali Ram and two others …………Applicants Versus State and another …………Respondents (2) CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.754 OF 2005 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Sho Singh …………Applicant Versus State and another …………Respondents Dated: July 14, 2010 Mr. Tapan Singh, Adv. holding brief of Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Adv. for the applicants Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 None for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Since both these applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the applicants against the same Complaint Case No.839 of 2002, Nahar Singh v. Sukh Ram and others, under Sections 120(b), 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC as well as against the summoning order dated 19.4.2003, hence, both these applications are being disposed of by this common order. By means of these petitions, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the Complaint Case No.839 of 2002, Nahar Singh v. Sukh Ram 2 and others, under Sections 120(b), 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC as well as quashing of the order dated 19.4.2003 by which the applicants have been summoned in the trial court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Nahar Singh filed a complaint against the present applicants and others stating that his father Kalu Ram was the owner of the property, situated in Village Tanshipur, P.S. Manglore, District Haridwar and after the death of his father, the complainant and brothers of the complainant, namely, Mohar Singh and Beena Singh were having possession over the aforesaid land and they are the owner of the said property. It is alleged that the applicants along with other co-accused, by hatching a conspiracy and with intention to grab the property of the complainant, executed a sale deed dated 1.10.2001 in favour of one Sher Singh by fabricating forged documents. With the same averments, this complaint was filed by the respondent no.2 Nahar Singh in the court, which was registered as Complaint Case No.839 of 2002 under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. The complainant in support of his case got himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Smt. Shiksha Devi and Jammidas were got examined. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the entire material available, learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee vide his order dated 19.4.2003 took the cognizance against the applicants under the aforesaid sections. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 19.4.2003, the applicants have preferred the present C482 application before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint as well as the statements recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. of the 3 complainant Nahar Singh and that of Smt. Shiksha Devi and Jammidas 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 u/s 200 Cr.P.C. 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 applications. Both the applications, being devoid of merit, are dismissed. Interim order dated 28.10.2005 passed by this Court in C482 No.754 of 2005 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 14.07.2010 RG