IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.798 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Smt. Seeya …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: October 7, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State. None for respondent no.2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/applicant has sought quashing of summoning order dated 8.9.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, in case no.239 of 2006, Kunta v. Jeet Singh, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC). Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 filed a complaint against the present applicant and two others in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, alleging therein that on 24.5.2006 at about 11 AM, the applicant and other co-accused entered into her house, hurled abuses on her and thereafter assaulted her. In support of her complaint, she got herself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Smt. Bugli and Balwant were got examined. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the material available, learned Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, vide his order dated 8.9.2006, summoned the applicants. Against the said summoning order dated 8.9.2006, the 2 applicant has preferred the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of Smt. Bugli and Balwant recorded u/s 202 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 applicant. 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., 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 complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the applicant is rightly 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 13.10.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 7.10.2010 RG