IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 1032/2006 Meenu Bhatia …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents August 10, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Smt. Monika Pant, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 6.11.2006 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3073/2006 Smt. Raj Kaushalya v. Rakesh Bhatia & Ors. under Section 420 IPC pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Dehradun. Facts, in brief, are that on 6.11.2006, the respondent no. 2 Smt. Raj kaushalya lodged a complaint against the petitioner and other co-accused with the allegations that on 18.7.2003, the petitioner who was teaching her grandson had received Rs. 50,000/- from the respondent no. 2 as earnest money for a house, which was being purchased by the respondent no. 2, but when no sale deed of that house was executed in favour of the respondent no. 2, then she visited the house of the petitioner on 11.1.2005 and demanded her money back from the petitioner and the other co-accused, but they did not return her the amount of Rs. 50,000/- and they also committed marpit with her and abused her. It was further alleged in the complaint that at the time of taking Rs. 50,000/- the petitioner had also executed a receipt on the stamp paper in the presence of her daughter Smt. Geeta Sharma and one Sardar Harcharan Singh. Respondent no. 2 approached the police but her report was not lodged. Thereafter she lodged the present complaint before the Magistrate. The complaint of respondent no. 2 was registered as Criminal Case No. 3073/2006. Learned trial court recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC on the same day and came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioner and accordingly summoned her vide order dated 6.11.2006. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner due to the reasons that averments made in the complaint are corroborated by the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and other documentary evidence produced by the complainant. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner; perusal of complaint, summoning order dated 30.8.2006, statements recorded under Section 200 and other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case under the aforesaid Sections is made out against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the dispute involves factual question which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record. 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. If the allegations made and the evidence oral as well as documentary produced against the accused and the statements of witnesses are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner 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. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 2 Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 19.12.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 10.8.2010 PRABODH 3