IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 182/2006 Gulam Mustafa Chopra & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 15, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Vinod Sharma, 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 12.1.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in complain case no. 272/2005, Shamsher @ Shamshad v. Gulam Mustafa Chopra & Ors and also to quash the entire proceedings of said case. Facts, in brief, are that respondent no. 2 Shamsher @ Shamshad filed a complaint with the averments that petitioners are harassing him and have lodged many false cases against him in order to harass him. On 3.8.2005 at 9 am, petitioners came at the house of Beeru, brother of the complainant on the pretext of compromise, but they started to abuse and also committed marpit with the complainant and his brother and they were saved by Mohd. Alam and other people. In this incident, the complainant suffered the injuries. When the report of this incident was not lodged by the police, the respondent no. 2 filed the said complaint before the Magistrate. 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 is made out against the petitioners/accused and accordingly summoned them vide order dated 12.1.2006. 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 also by the injury report of the complainant. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners; perusal of impugned order dated 12.1.2006, statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 CrPC, injury report of the complainant and other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case against the petitioners is made out. 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 collected 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 23.3.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 15.7.2010 PRABODH 2