CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.68 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Smt. Norti and four others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and two others …………Respondents Dated: July 27, 2010 Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicants 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 petitioners/applicants has sought quashing of the judgment and order dated 12.12.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.155 of 2004, Smt. Norti and others v. State and others and the summoning order dated 21.5.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in Criminal Complaint Case No.140 of 2004, Ravita v. Vikram and others as well as quashing of the entire proceedings of criminal case no.140 of 2004 under Sections 498 A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC) and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. In brief, the facts of the case are respondent no.3 Smt. Ravita lodged a complaint in the court of C.J.M, Haridwar stating therein that the complaint was got married to the co-accused Vikram two years before as per Hindu RITES. It is alleged that the in-laws of the complainant were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage and, since the marriage, the applicants, her husband Vikram and one 2 co-accused Sompal were torturing her for the same. It is further alleged that the husband of the complainant used to commit marpeet with her for dowry and used to demand Rs.20,000/- from her. It is further alleged that on 4.2.2004 her husband along with the applicants came in the parental house of the complainant and demanded Rs.20,000/- and also gave abuses to the parents of the complainant. A report to this effect was given in the police station by the respondent no.3 as well as an application was also moved by her before S.S.P., Haridwar but no action was taken on the same. Thereafter, this complaint was filed by the respondent no.3 in the court of C.J.M., Haridwar on 9.2.2004, which was registered as Criminal Complaint Case No.140 of 2004. The complainant in support of her complaint got herself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Vedpal and Amar Singh were got examined. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the material available, learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, vide order dated 21.5.2004 summoned the applicants and other co- accused. Against the said order dated 21.5.2004, the applicants preferred a revision before Sessions Judge, Haridwar, who, vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2005 rejected the same. Being aggrieved by the said orders dated 21.5.2004 and 12.12.2005, 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 recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of Vedpal and Amar 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 Sections 498A of IPC and 3/4 of the Act 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 3 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 complaint and the statement recorded u/Ss 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, 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 25.1.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 27.07.2010 RG