IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.731 Of 2009 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Satish Kumar Shukla …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: October 26, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State and Mr. Tumul Nailwal, Advocate for respondent no.2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the applicant has sought quashing of the charge sheet dated and summoning order dated 1.7.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Khatima in Criminal Case No.711 of 2009, State v. Satish Kumar Shukla, relating to offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 498-A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and one punishable under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) as well as the entire proceedings of aforesaid case Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Mamta Shukla moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and got lodged an FIR against the present applicant and others stating that she is posted as Lecturer in Government Girls Inter College, Khatima since 17 years. It is alleged that she got married to the applicant on 2.5.2002 in Kanpur and in the marriage, her father gave sufficient dowry but the applicant and others did not satisfy with it and after the marriage they started harassing her mentally and physically for the same. It is further alleged that when on holidays she used to come to 2 her in-laws house, she was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and others for the demand of ` 12.00 lacs and a maruti car. It is further alleged that when their aforesaid demand could not be fulfilled by her father, the applicant beaten her and ousted from the house. Thereafter she came to Khatima where on 11.5.2008 at 9 PM, the applicant and others came to her house and the applicant hurled abuses on her and also beaten her for the aforesaid demand of dowry and due to which she received a number of injuries. With these averments, the FIR was got lodged by respondent no.2. After lodging of FIR, the matter was investigated and on completion of investigation the I.O. filed a charge sheet against the present applicant. On receipt of charge sheet, vide order dated 1.7.2009, learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, summoned the present applicant under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 498A IPC and 3/4 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. Counter affidavits have been filed by the State as well as by respondent no.2 and in which the averments made in the C482 application have been denied. From a perusal of the contents of the first information report; statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and on perusing the counter affidavits of the respondents, 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 sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the first information report and the 3 statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, 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 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 24.9.2009 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 26.10.2010 RG