IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.890 OF 2006 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Mohammad Shakeel …………Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents Dated: July 6, 2010 Sri S.K. Mishra, Adv. for the applicant Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 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 26.9.2006 passed by the CJM, Tehri Garhwal in Crl. Case No.1432/2006, State Vs. Sanju @ Vivek & others, u/s 394, 120-B IPC and also to quash the charge sheet dated 23.9.2006 in Case Crime No.850/2006 and also to quash the proceedings of Crl. Case No/1432/2006 pending before CJM, Tehri Garhwal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Siddharth lodged an FIR against unknown persons with the averments that on 1.6.2006 his clerk Ram Prakash and driver Pravesh had gone to Rudraprayag from Saharanpur by Wagon-R Car No.UP11-N-2239 and when they did not return till evening, then their whereabouts were enquired, however all were in vain. On 3.6.2006 at about 7 AM, his clerk informed the complainant that when he was returning from Rudraprayag, then at about 4 PM, a Tata Indica Car having board of C.E.O., stopped them by overtaking and informed that they are the Sales Tax Officer 2 and further directed him (clerk) to get the vehicle checked. After that out of those four persons who were sitting in Indica Car, three persons sat in his Wagon-R car and then two persons pushed him and the driver inside the car and by pointing the revolver on his head, asked them to proceed. Thereafter, they started proceeded for Sahajahanpur and on the way at the place, namely, Bicholiya, he (the clerk) and the driver were pushed down and the accused ran away by taking the said Wagon-R car. In the car, 20 kilograms silver and Rs.5.00 lacs of cash was there which they also took with them. When the clerk and driver came back by train, then complainant brought them at the police station and lodged the report. Thereafter the matter was investigated and the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner u/s 394/120-B IPC on 23.9.2006. On the said charge shet, learned CJM, Tehri Garhwal vide order dated 26.9.2006 directed to register the case and took cognizance against the petitioner and accordingly summoned him. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that no offence is made out against him and he has been wrongly summoned by the court below. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that the name of the petitioner came into light when the co-accused of this case were arrested and the telephonic/mobile conversation between the petitioner and co-accused took place and co- accused have also been charge sheeted. Even the statements of witnesses have been recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Ram Prasad (clerk), Pravesh Kumar (driver), who in their statements have fully corroborated the contents of the FIR. Even as per the statements of co-accused Prakash Singh and Sanju @ Vivek @ Rajeev, the name of the present petitioner has come into light and therefore, he has rightly been summoned. At this stage, prima facie the offence u/s 394/120-B IPC is made out against the petitioner on the 3 basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the applicant 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 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 in the statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Ram Prasad (clerk), Pravesh Kumar (driver) and that of co-accused Prakash Singh and Sanju @ Vivek @ Rajeev are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner has 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. Interim order dated 19.12.2006 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 6, 2010 Rajeev Dang