IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.484 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Smt. Sumedha Devi and another …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: July 19, 2010 Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate for respondent no.2 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 applicants have sought quashing of the summoning order dated 7.4.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag as well as the proceedings of criminal case no.378 of 2005, Smt. Darshani Devi v. Parashu Ram and others under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of IPC. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Darshani Devi (respondent no.2) filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag against the applicant and other co- accused alleging therein that she got married to the co- accused Kamal Kishore in April 2003, as per Hindu RITES. A girl was born out of the wedlock. It is alleged that since the marriage, the applicants, who are mother-in-law and father-in-law of respondent no.2, were harassing respondent no.2 for bringing dowry from her parental house. On 22.6.2004, the applicants abused her and asked to bring Rs.10,000/- from her parents’ house and on the same day, 2 her husband left her at her parental house. It is further alleged that the applicant no.2 lodged a false report of kidnapping of his son co-acccused Kamal Kishore against her family members. It is further alleged that on the one hand, she has been harassed by the applicants while on the other, the applicants have lodged a false report against her family members. It is further alleged that the co-accused Kamal Kishore (son of applicants) have solemnized second marriage with co-accused Sony. With the same averments, respondent no.2 Smt. Darshani Devi lodged a complaint against the applicants and co-accused on 9.3.2005, which was registered as Complaint Case No.378 of 2005. In support of his complaint, the complainant got herself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Baswanand, (father of the complainant) and Vijay Prasad, were got examined. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the entire material available, learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag vide order dated 7.4.2005, summoned the applicants and other co-accused under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of IPC and criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicants and others. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 7.4.2005 and the criminal proceedings initiated against them, 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 Smt. Darshani Devi recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of Baswanand and Vijay Prasad recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., 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 persons and also on the basis of the 3 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/s 200 Cr.P.C. 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 C482application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 4.7.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 19.07.2010 RG