IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 539/2006 Suresh & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 23, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. GC Lakhchaura, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. 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 26.11.2005 passed in Criminal Case No. 1288/2006 Smt. Munni Devi v. Suresh & Ors. under Section 147/149/323/504 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. Learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that he does not want to press the present petition in respect of petitioners no. 9, 10 and 11. Hence, petition in respect of petitioners no. 9, 10 and 11 are rejected as not pressed. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent no. 2 Smt. Munni Devi lodged a complaint against the petitioners under Section 147/148/149/323/504/506 IPC stating that she belongs to Balmiki community. Petitioners are her neighbourers, who with the intention to grab her residential land, often quarrel with her and conspire against her. On 12.8.2005, in this connection, the complainant had gone to the office of DM, Udham Singh Nagar and when she was returning at about 6 pm, the petitioners abused her at Jaspur Bus Stand and also committed marpit with her in which she received injuries. Radha, Surendra, Mahaveer and many other people who were standing at the bus stand rescued her from the petitioners. Petitioners also threatened her not to lodge the report of this incident. 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 147/149/323/504 IPC is made out against the petitioners no. 1 to 8 only and accordingly summoned them vide order dated 26.11.2005. 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 26.11.2005, 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 13.7.2006 stands vacated. 2 (Dharam Veer, J.) 23.7.2010 PRABODH 3