IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.149 OF 2005 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Uttam Sugar Mills Ltd. and others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …………Respondents Dated: October 4, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mrs. Monica Pant, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Arvind Vashishtha, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 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 summoning order dated 15.1.2004 passed by Ist Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Roorkee in criminal case no.8 of 2004, Sudesh Kumar v. Uttam Sugar Mills Ltd., under Sections 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) as well as the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.3 filed a complaint against the applicants alleging that the complainant was in possession over land Khasra No.113 situated at Mauja Kulchandi, Manglore, Tehsil Roorkee where the sugarcane crop of the complainant was standing. It is alleged that the applicants wanted to purchase the said land from the complainant but he refused for the same and because of that reason the applicants, with intention to pressurize the complainant, destroyed his crop and caused a 2 loss of ` 20,000/- by flowing the polluted water of the mill in his field. It is further alleged that on 26.12.2003 at about 9 AM when he made compliant of the said incident to the applicant nos.3 and 4, they hurled abuses on him. With the same averments, respondent no.3 lodged the present complaint in the court. In support of this complaint, the complainant got himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. he got examined Kaliram and Rakesh Kumar Sharma. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the material available, learned Ist Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Roorkee, vide his order dated 15.1.2004, took the cognizance of the offence under Sections 427 and 504 IPC against the applicants and also summoned the applicants and subsequently criminal proceedings were initiated against them. Against the said summoning order dated 15.1.2004 and the criminal proceedings, the applicants have preferred this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint and the statement of complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of witnesses namely Kaliram and Rakesh Kumar Sharma, 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 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 3 allegations made in the complaint 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 this application. The C482 application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 18.3.2005 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 4.10.2010 RG