IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.898 of 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Digpal Singh and three others ………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: July 30, 2010 Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State None for respondent no.2 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 petitioners/applicants have sought quashing of the summoning order dated 14.8.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag as well as the proceedings of criminal case no.615 of 2006, Smt. Rajeshwari Devi v. Pramod Singh and others, relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC) and one u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in file. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Rajeshwari Devi filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag against the applicants stating therein that the complainant got married to the applicant Pramod Singh in the year 2003. It is alleged that after the marriage the behaviour of the applicants was not 2 good towards her and they used to harass her physically and mentally for the demand of dowry. It is further alleged that on 11.4.2008 when the brother of the complainant came to take her for Baishakhi festival, then the applicants committed marpeet with her, ousted her from the house and also threatened her for life in case if she comes back to her matrimonial house. With these averments, the complaint was filed by respondent no.2 Smt. Rajeshwari Devi before C.J.M., Rudraprayag, which was registered as Case No.615 of 2006 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of the Act. The complainant, in support of her case, examined herself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Rakesh Singh was got examined. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the material available, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rurdraprayag, vide order dated 14.8.2006 summoned the applicants under the aforesaid sections. Against the said order dated 14.8.2006, the applicants preferred a revision before Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag, who vide his judgment and order dated 18.10.2006, dismissed the revision and confirmed the order dated 14.8.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the said summoning order dated 14.8.2006, the applicants have preferred the present C482 application before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant Smt. Rajeshwari Devi recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of Rakesh Singh recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and after going through other papers available in file, I am of the view that prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections is made out against the applicants. 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 3 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 complaint and the statement recorded u/Ss 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 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 applicants 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 C482 application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 15.11.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 30.07.2010 RG