IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.687 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Sanjay Kumar Gupta …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: July 22, 2010 Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State 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 summoning order dated 26.7.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistare, Dehradun as well as the proceedings of criminal case no.1340 of 2005, Divisional Forest Officer v. Sanjay Kumar Gupta and another. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. In brief, the facts of the case are respondent no.2 lodged a complaint in the court of C.J.M, Dehradun with the allegations that he has been informed by one Forest Guard that on 9.4.2005 at about 9 AM the applicant along with his companions were digging the drainage and they also cut the thicket after damaging the boundary pillar no.381. They were tried to stop to do so, but the applicant and his companions forcibly did so. With the same averments, the complaint was lodged by respondent no.2, which was registered as Criminal Case No.1340 of 2005 against the applicant under Sections 26(d)(h) and 63 of Indian Forest 2 Act, 1927 and section 2/3 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the material available, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, vide his order dated 26.7.2005 took the cognizance against the applicant and accordingly he was summoned in the trial court. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 26.7.2005 and the criminal proceedings initiated against him, the applicant has preferred the present C482 application before this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State on behalf of Sri Jagdish Prasad Kukreti, Range Officer, wherein at Para-4 it is specifically stated that the land in question is a Reserved Forest Notified under Notification No.4962/14 dated 8.10.1954, No.7616/14(Kha-137) dated 23.12.1964 and 979(2)/14 dated 29.4.1954. Said land is the property of Forest Department and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta (the applicant herein) is not the owner of that land. It is further stated that, in records, the land is totally under the ownership of forest department. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint and the counter affidavit as well as on the basis of the notification mentioned above, it transpires that the land in question is the property of Forest Department and the present applicant is not the owner of that land. Thus, I am of the view that prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections is made out against the applicant. 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 3 sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety as well as on the basis of the documentary evidence, 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 C482 application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 23.8.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 22.07.2010 RG