IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.1051 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Moti Lal and four others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: August 9, 2010 Mohd. Azim, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State Mr. Anil Dabral, 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 petitioners/applicants have sought quashing of the order dated 18.4.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in criminal case no.804 of 2006, State v. Moti Lal and others, under Sections 376(2)(g), 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC) and Sect. 5/7 of Drug and Magic Remedies Objectionable Advertisement Act, 1954 (for short, the Act) and further Sect. 3(1)(xii)/13(2)(d) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, SC/ST Act) as well as prayed for quashing of the supplementary charge sheet no.330A/2005 dated 24.3.2006. Counter affidavit filed by the State be taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Km. Usha lodged a report at P.S. Kotwali Dehradun on 16.10.2005 alleging that after getting influenced with an advertisement published in a newspaper in June 2005, she went to Ganesh 2 Jyotish Office in order to solve her problems, where she met with the applicant Moti Lal. It is alleged that on the demand of the applicant Moti Lal she paid Rs.5100/- to him. It is further alleged that in the garb of worship and solving her problems, the applicants Moti Lal and Subhash Kumar and two unknown persons committed rape with her many times. With the same averments, she lodged the present FIR in the police station. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted a charge sheet against the applicants under Sections 376, 420 and 120B of IPC and 5/7 of the Act in the court. On the basis of this charge sheet, learned Magistrate summoned the applicants and committed the case to the court of Sessions. Thereafter, the I.O. started further investigation u/s 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. and recorded the statement of the complainant and thereafter submitted supplementary charge sheet against the applicants before C.J.M., Dehradun u/Ss 376(2)(g), 420, 120B of IPC and 5/7 of the Act and Section 3(1)(XII)/13(2) of SC/ST Act. On the basis of this supplementary charge sheet, a separate criminal case no.804 of 2006 was registered against the applicants and, vide order dated 18.4.2006, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun took the cognizance of the offence and summoned the applicants. Against the said order dated 18.4.2006 and the supplementary charge sheet, the applicants have preferred this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the First Information Report and the statement of the complainant recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and after going through other papers available in file, I am of the view that prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections is made out against the applicants and the supplementary charge sheet has rightly been submitted against the applicants and, on the basis of same, cognizance order dated 18.4.2006 is rightly passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 3 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., 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 report and the statement recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the supplementary charge sheet is rightly submitted against the applicant and the applicants have accordingly 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 C482 application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 22.12.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 9.8.2010 RG