IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 670/2010 Samim Ahemad & Anr. …….Petitioners Versus Smt. Bilkish …….Respondent July 15, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Singh Advocate for the petitioners. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioners have prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the Ist Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar passed in complain case no. 1179/2008, Smt. Bilkish v. Shamim Ahemad & Ors under Section 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and also to quash the entire proceedings of said case. Facts, in brief, are that the marriage of daughter of the complainant/respondent was fixed with the petitioner no. 1 Shamim Ahemad but it could not happen because of excessive demand of dowry made by the petitioners. Thereafter a case was lodged against the petitioners and other co-accused under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in PS Pathri which was registered as Case Crime No. 80/2008. Thereafter on 22.7.2008 at about 5 pm, petitioners along with two other unknown co-accused came in the house of the respondent and threatened her daughter to withdraw the case and also abused and beaten them. The incident was seen by Nawab and some other persons. When the respondent went to lodge the report in the police station, her report was not lodged and thereafter she filed the said complaint. Learned trial court after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of the witnesses Nawab Ali and Asmeen, daughter of the respondent under Section 202 CrPC, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners/accused and accordingly summoned them vide order dated 28.11.2008. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners due to the reasons that averments made in the complaint are corroborated by the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC. Petitioners have also been chargesheeted in the Case Crime No. 80/2008 earlier lodged against the petitioners/accused for the demand of dowry. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners; perusal of impugned order dated 28.11.2008, statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 CrPC and other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case against the petitioners is made out against the aforesaid sections. The dispute involves factual question which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record. 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. If the allegations made and the evidence collected against the accused and the statements of witnesses 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. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 2 15.7.2010 PRABODH 3