IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 767/2006 Annagpal & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents August 2, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. MS Tyagi, 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 petitioners have prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 30.8.2006 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 502/2005 Hukam Chand v. Annagpal & Ors. under Section 147/392/341 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent no. 2 Hukam Chand lodged a complaint against the petitioners stating that petitioners have enmity with him and they want to grab his property. The complainant had sown cane in his field where the petitioners came at 8 am on 2.11.2005 and cut all the can crop worth Rs. 30,000/- from his field. The information of this incident was immediately given to the respondent no. 2 by Chatar and Jeet Singh. When the complainant went to his field along with the aforesaid witnesses, then the petitioners tied him with a tree and abused him and took all the cane crop from his field in a tractor. They also threatened the complainant not to inform the police otherwise they would kill him. Respondent no. 2 reported the said incident to the police but no action was taken. Thereafter he lodged the present complaint before the Magistrate. 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 under Section 147/392/341 IPC is made out against the petitioners and accordingly summoned them vide order dated 30.8.2006. 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 and other documentary evidence produced by the complainant. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners; perusal of complaint, summoning order dated 30.8.2006, statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 CrPC and other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case under the aforesaid Sections is made out against the petitioners. Even otherwise, 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 oral as well as documentary produced 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. Interim order dated 10.10.2006 stands vacated. 2 (Dharam Veer, J.) 2.8.2010 PRABODH 3