IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.621 OF 2010 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Aayub & others …………Applicants Versus Jasveer S/o Late Govind Ram …………Respondent Dated: July 6, 2010 Sri Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv. for the applicants HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the order-dated 28.4.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee District Haridwar in Case No.1138/2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that complainant/respondent Jasveer moved a complaint with the averments that on 9.4.2010 at about 5 PM, when he was present in his house, then the petitioners entered inside his house. Petitioners Ayub, Mahmood Hasan and Sanavvar were armed with LATHIS, petitioner Shahjad was having an iron rod in his hand, petitioner Wasim was having a knife while the petitioner Shamshad was having a country-made pistol. The petitioners soon after entering inside the house, started hurling abuses and petitioners 3 to 5 viz. Sanavvar, Sehjad and Wasim, caught the ladies viz. Km. Socha, Km. Baby and Smt. Sukki, who were present in the house. The petitioners Sanavvar caught Km. Socha, petitioner Shahjad caught Km. Babi and petitioner Wasim caught Km. Sukki and these petitioners made these 2 ladies fallen down and outraged their modesty. When the complainant and the victims resisted to it, then the petitioners 1, 2 and 6 viz. Ayub, Mehmood Hassan and Samshad caught the complainant and beaten him with Lathis-Dandas and even petitioner no.6-Shamshad fired upon the complainant with intention to kill him, however he was narrowly escaped. Thereafter, on the noise raised by the complainant and his family members, Nadim, Vijay Kumar and Dinesh and other persons arrived there and saved them from the petitioners. After filing of the complaint in the court, the statement of complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. as well as the statements of witnesses as PW1 Km. Socha, PW2 Km. Bebi, PW3 Smt. Sukki, PW4 Vijay Kumar and PW5 Dinesh have been recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., who in their examination, have fully corroborated the contents of the complaint. After perusing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee vide order dated 28.4.2010 summoned the petitioners Sanavvar, Shahjad and Wasim u/s 354/504/506 IPC while the petitioners Ayub, MahmoodHassan and Shamshad have been summoned u/s 323/504/506 IPC. Assailing that order- dated 28.4.2010, the petitioners have filed the present petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that no offence is made out against them and they have been wrongly summoned by the court below. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant/ respondent, the order passed by the trial court as well as the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the offences u/s 354/504/506 IPC against the petitioners Sanavvar, Shahjad and Wasim and the offences punishable u/s 323/504/506 IPC against the petitioners Ayub, Mahmood Hasan and Shamshad are prima facie made out 3 on the basis of the above-said discussion as they have entered inside the house of complainant, hurled abuses, beaten him with Lathis-Dandas, outraged the modesty of the ladies present over there and also fired upon the complainant, however he was narrowly escaped, and I find that the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the petitioners to face trial. 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 appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High 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 as well as the statement of complainant Jasbeer u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. of Dinesh, Vijay Kumar, Smt. Sukki, Km. Baby, Km. Socha 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. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 6, 2010 Rajeev Dang