IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.817 OF 2008 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Smt. Farida and three others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: July 27, 2010 Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State Mr. Rajesh Joshi, 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 summoning order dated 1.12.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital in Criminal Case No.738 of 2008, State v. Shahnawaj and others, relating to offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC) and one punishable u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) as well as quashing of the charge sheet dated 30.9.2008. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Sabina lodged a First Information Report at P.S. Ramnagar, District Nainital against the applicants with the averments that the complainant/respondent no.2 got married to the applicant no.4 Shahnawaj on 29.6.2006. It is alleged that the after the marriage the applicants used to harass her mentally and physically for dowry. It is further alleged that 2 before of lodging of the report, the applicant ousted her from the house for the demand of dowry. With the same averments, the First Information Report was got registered against the applicants as Case Crime No.176 of 2008, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and 3/4 of the Act. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet against the applicants in the court. On receipt of charge sheet, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, Nainital vide order dated 1.10.2008 took the cognizance of the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of the Act and also summoned the applicants. Against the said charge sheet and the summoning order dated 1.10.2008, the applicants have preferred the present C482 application before this Court. A compromise application has been moved on behalf of the applicants and the respondent no.2 along with which a joint compromise arrived at in between the applicants and the respondent no.2, has been annexed. But the respondent no.2 Smt. Sabina, who is present in person before this Court today, has not supported the contents of the compromise. Rather she has stated that she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the applicants for the demand of dowry and she wants the case to be continued against the applicants. From the above statement, it transpires that the compromise application is misconceived and, thus, the same is accordingly rejected. From a perusal of the contents of the First Information Report 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 applicant. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of 3 the accused 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 First Information Report are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the applicants 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 C482 application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 18.12.2008 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 27.07.2010 RG