IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.788 OF 2005 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Sukbhir & others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents Dated: July 9, 2010 Sri HS Dhillon, Adv. for the applicants 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 order-dated 4.12.2004 passed by the JM, Laksar, District Haridwar in Complaint No.759/2004, Kanwar Pal Vs. Vikram & others as well as judgment and order dated 21.9.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/III FTC, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.35 of 2005, State Vs. Sukhbir & others. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that Sushma, daughter of respondent no.2 was married petitioner no.2- Vikram on 23.6.2003 as per Hindu RITES and the complainant gave dowry beyond his status. However, the petitioners were not satisfied with the dowry given and for this reason, they started coercing her for bringing more dowry and on being failed to do so, she was subjected to mental harassment. On 4.9.2004, the petitioners brought the daughter of respondent no.2 at his home and went away after leaving her there. It was further averred that the petitioners also demanded Rs.50,000/- in cash and a 2 motorcycle and threatened that in case of failure, complainant’s daughter would be murdered. On hearing the noise, Rajpal and Deshraj also arrived there, however even on their intervention, the petitioners did not agree. The complainant thereafter went to lodge the report but his report was not lodged. Accordingly, the present complaint was moved before the trial court. In the court below, the complainant was examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. while PW1 Sushma and PW2 Rajpal were examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Besides the oral evidence, in the documentary evidence, medical report of victim as well as list of the items given in dowry were also produced before the trial court. On perusing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, Haridwar vide order dated 4.12.2004 took cognizance and summoned the petitioners u/s 498-A IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Assailing that order dated 4.12.2004, the petitioners preferred a criminal revision, which also came to be dismissed on 21.9.2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge/III FTC, Haridwar. Assailing those orders, the petitioners have filed the instant petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that no offence is made out against them and the petitioners have 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 complaint filed by the complainant, the statements of the complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. as well as the statements of the witnesses, namely, Sushma and Rajpal, offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, prima facie made out against the petitioners on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the petitioners to face trial. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well 3 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., the High 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 as well as in the statements recorded of complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses Sushma and Rajpal recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., as well as the documentary evidence i.e. medical report of victim and the list of the documents given in the marriage, are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners 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 application C482 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 16.11.2005 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 9, 2010 Rdang