IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.347 OF 2006 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Dr. Azad Khan …………Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents Dated: July 26, 2010 Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, Adv. i/b Mr. BM Pingal, Adv. for the applicant 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 proceedings in Criminal Case No.968 or 2004 U/s 420/406/468/467/471 IPC, pending before the First Addl. Civil Judge (J.D), Haridwar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2- moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the averments that on 6.3.2003 at about 6 PM, the present applicant along with co-accused Dr. V. Gupta approached him and requested for a loan of Rs.60,000/- for opening a Heart Clinic. On this, the complainant gave Rs.60,000/- to Dr. V. Gupta in presence of witnesses, Hemant @ Sonu and Kanhaiya in lieu of which the co-accused Dr. V. Gupta handed over two cheques both dated 6.3.2003 each amounting to Rs.30,000/-. When the complainant deposited the said cheques for encashment, he was informed by the Bank that there is no bank account of said Dr. V. Gupta at Punjab National Bank, Jwalapur and even the account number mentioned in the cheque is also forged. On 28.8.2003 at about 7 PM, when the complainant along with witnesses Hemant @ Sonu and Kanhaiya went to the accused, the petitioner and co-accused Dr. V. Gupta became furious and started hurling filthy abuses and also intimidated him to his life. The complainant after that tried to lodge the report and also sent application 2 through post to SSP Hariwar, but all futile. On the basis of this application, the case was registered against the petitioner and co-accused and the matter was investigated and after completion of investigation, the I.O. filed the charge sheet against the petitioner. On the basis of that charge sheet, learned Magistrate proceeded to summon the petitioner vide order dated 28.9.2004. Hence this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that no offence is made out against him and the petitioner has 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 report lodged by the complainant, the statements of the witnesses Sonu and Kanhaiya, who fully corroborated the entire story, I find that the offences punishable u/s 420/406/467/468/471 IPC are prima facie made out against the petitioner on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the petitioner 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 court. If the allegations made in the FIR as well as 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. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 23.5.2006 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 26, 2010 Rdang