IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.808 OF 2008 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Nikhil Chaudhary …………Applicant Versus State and another …………Respondents Dated: July 07, 2010 Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, 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 petitioner/applicant has sought quashing of the charge sheet dated 27.7.2007 (Annexure No.7) as well as proceedings of Criminal Case No.1172 of 2007, State Vs. Nikhil Chaudhary and another, relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 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. Pinky got married to petitioner Nikhil Chaudhary on 23.11.2005 in Dehradun. In the marriage, the petitioner had made a demand of Rs.3 Lacs cash and a car but her parents had given jewellery of Rs.2 Lac, Rs.1.00 Lac by way of cheque and had also spent Rs.7 Lacs in other articles and in the marriage ceremony. But the petitioner and his family members did not stop their demand of car. It is further alleged that the petitioner was serving at Banglore and after the marriage, when he went to his service at Banglore he did not take respondent no.2 with him due to non-fulfillment of demand of 2 dowry. Later on 7.7.2006, mother-in-law of respondent no.2 took her to Banglore and left her at Banglore with the petitioner, where the petitioner committed physical and mental harassment of respondent no.2 for the demand of dowry. It is further alleged by respondent no.2 that the petitioner ousted her from his house in Banglore for the demand of dowry. It further stated that at present the respondent no.2 is residing with her parents at Dehradun and the petitioner is giving threats on telephone that if his demand of Rs.5.00 Lacs would not be fulfilled, she would be murdered. With the same averments, the respondent no.2 Smt. Pinky Chaudhary lodged the FIR with Reporting Out Post Premnagar, Dehradun on 3.6.2007. The matter was investigated and after completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and other co-accused on the basis of which a Criminal Case No.1172 of 2007 under Sections 498A, 323, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered and criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant and other co-accused. Against the said charge sheet and the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant, the applicant has preferred this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating the fact that the I.O. during the course of investigation has found sufficient evidence against the petitioner and others and on the basis of credible evidence, he has submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and other co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause of action has allegedly taken place within the territorial limits of Banglore court, as such the proceedings before Dehradun court are liable to be quashed. I do not find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The contents of the First Information Report disclose that though major part of the alleged harassment is said to have taken place within the territorial limits of Banglore but the phone 3 calls are said to have been made to the complainant at Dehradun. In the present case since part of cause of action is in Dehradun (State of Uttarakhand) as such the aforesaid argument does not help the petitioner. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the contents of First Information Report and other material available on record, I am of the view that prima facie a case under Sections 498A, 323, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioner. 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., the High 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 judge. If the allegations made in the First Information Report are taken at their face value as well as on the basis of the evidence collected by the I.O. and the charge sheet, I am of the view that the applicant 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. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 26.12.2008 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 07.07.2010 RG