IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.695 OF 2006 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Gopal Datt Joshi & another …………Applicants Versus CJM Bageshwar & another …………Respondents Dated: August 3, 2010 Sri GC Kandpal, Adv. for the applicants Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 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 charge sheet and the proceedings in Criminal Case No.543 of 2006, State Vs. Gopal Datt Joshi & others, U/s 498-A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act {hereinafter to be referred as the Act}, pending before CJM Bageshwar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Smt. Nima Joshi was married with Sanjay Joshi son of petitioner Gopal Datt Joshi in 1998, however her mother in law Smt. Vimla Joshi ousted her from the house for bringing less dowry, but her maternal uncle came and persuaded the petitioners. After some days, the complainant gave birth to a daughter on which the atrocities being committed upon her were increased. When she reported about the same to Tehsildar, the Tehsildar came and settled the issue and her father in law also apologize in writing. Thereafter the daughter of complainant had died inasmuch as she was not properly looked after and even the complainant was being harassed continuously by the petitioners. Thereafter the matter was investigated and after completing the investigation, the I.O. filed the charge sheet against the petitioners and co-accused Rekha Mishra u/s 498-A IPC and 3/4 of the Act, on the basis of which learned CJM 2 Bageshwar on 12.7.2006 took cognizance and summoned the petitioners under the aforesaid sections. Hence this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that no offence is made out against them and the court below has wrongly summoned them. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the FIR lodged by the respondent no.2, the statements of the complainant and that of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., I find that the offences punishable u/s 498-A IPC and 3/4 of the Act 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 that 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 FIR as well as the statements of witnesses u/s 161 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 merits and is hereby accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 25.08.2006 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 3, 2010 Rdang