IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 731/2005 Govind Singh Manola …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 15, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2579/2003 under Section 504, 506 IPC, Ajay Kaushik v. Govind Singh Manola & Ors. pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent no. 2 Ajay Kaushik filed a complaint before the Magistrate stating that earlier he was the tenant of House No. A-5, Nehru Colony, Dehradun but he subsequently purchased it from the co-accused Smt. Shanti Devi. The intention of the co-accused was not good and they wanted to get vacated the said premises from the complainant. Petitioner was Chowki-in-Charge, Nehru Colony and he was hand in glove with other co-accused and, therefore, petitioner was harassing him and, therefore, respondent no. 2 complained of the petitioner to the SSP, Dehradun but the petitioner begged forgiveness from him and, therefore, he withdrew his aforesaid complain but thereafter petitioner started to keep more ill-will against the respondent no. 2. On 31.8.1998, the co-accused implicated the respondent no. 2 and his other family members in a false theft case and the complainant was arrested. When he was in the lock-up, the petitioner had threatened him that he would be killed in an encounter and also committed marpit with him. On 9.9.1998, petitioner and other co-accused removed all the articles from the house of the respondent no. 2 and also captured his house while the respondent no. 2 was in jail. On 28.10.1998 i.e. on the date fixed, when the complainant came in the trial court, petitioner had abused and threatened to kill the complainant outside the court. Thereafter the respondent no. 2 lodged this complaint with the aforesaid averments. Learned trial court after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner/accused and accordingly summoned them vide order dated 1.8.2000. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner 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. State has also filed a counter affidavit wherein the averments made in the complaint have been supported. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner; perusal of impugned order dated 1.8.2000, 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 petitioner 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 2 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. Interim order dated 21.10.2005 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 15.7.2010 PRABODH 3