IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 737/2006 Jagdish Prasad Gairola & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents August 5, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. RP Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC) has been filed for quashing the chargesheet dated 26.2.2006 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 374/2006, State v. Ganesh Gairola & Ors. under Section 120-B, 420, 500 IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli. Facts, in brief, are that on 17.1.2006, respondent no. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, karnprayag, District Chamoli for registration of FIR under Section 120-B, 420, 500 IPC against the petitioners with the allegations that the marriage of petitioner no. 3 was proposed to be solemnized with Km. Reena, daughter of respondent no. 2 and in this respect, the engagement of marriage took place on 11.5.2005, in which respondent no. 2 spent Rs. 38,000/- and also gave the gift amounting to Rs. 24,000/- to the petitioners. But later on the petitioners refused to solemnize the marriage of petitioner no. 3 with the Km. Reena, daughter of respondent no. 2 and grabbed the aforesaid gifts given by the respondent no. 2 and also defamed his image in the locality. On the aforesaid application under Section 156(3) CrPC, learned Magistrate directed the Patwari concerned to register the case of respondent no. 2 and thereafter FIR was registered against the petitioners under Section 120-B, 420, 500 IPC. After the investigation, the I.O. submitted a chargesheet dated 26.2.2006 against the petitioners, on the basis of which learned CJM, Chamoli has taken the cognizance of the offence against the petitioners vide order dated 2.6.2006. Hence, this petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in this argument due to the reason that from the perusal of the contents of FIR and statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and other evidence collected by the I.O., a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners under the aforesaid sections. 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 in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and the statements of witnesses recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners have rightly been chargesheeted and summoned. 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 hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 13.9.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 5.8.2010 PRABODH 2 3