IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.866 OF 2005 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Hari Giri & others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents Dated: July 13, 2010 Sri S.K. Mandal, Adv. for the applicants Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 Sri Rajesh Pandey, Adv. i/b Sri Vijay Bhatt, Adv. for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the order-dated 23.7.2004 passed by CJM, Rudrapur, US Nagar and also to quash the Complaint Case No.1510/2004, Usha Devi Vs. Hari Giri & others. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Usha Devi-respondent no.2 preferred a complaint stating therein that on 16.4.2004 when she was coming back after attending the court of District Magistrate, US Nagar, then at about 1 PM, she reached on the Nainital Road, where the petitioners, who had also come on that day to attend the court, stopped their Jeep and started hurling abuses to her and further started committing beating her with fists and kicks. The complainant was also accompanying with her brother Gurudev Giri, who, when stopped the petitioners not to do so, then these petitioners also committed Marpit with him. The incident was witnessed by Gurdev Giri, Chandra Bhushan Kushwaha and several other persons, 2 who could manage to save the complainant from the petitioners. The petitioners while going also threatened the complainant to her life. The complainant on the same day moved an application at PS Rudrapur, however no action was taken thereon, hence she lodged the instant complaint on 7.5.2004. The complainant, in support of her case, got herself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. while u/s 202 Cr.P.C., she got examined Chandra Bhushan and Gurudev, who too in their oral evidence, corroborated the commission of incident. On perusing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, US Nagar vide order dated 23.7.2004 took cognizance and summoned the petitioners u/s 323/504/506 IPC. Assailing that order, the petitioners have filed the instant petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that no offence is made out against them and the petitioners have been wrongly summoned by the court below. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant, the statement of the complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., namely, Chandra Bhushan and Gurudev, the offences punishable u/s 323/504/506 IPC, are prima facie made out against the petitioners on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the petitioners to face trial. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused 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 3 court. If the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the statements recorded of complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners 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 application C482 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 06.12.2005 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 13, 2010 Rdang