IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.385 of 2005 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Anurag Mittal and three others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: August 4, 2010 Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State None 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 order dated 10.2.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Dehradun as well as the proceedings of criminal case no.932 of 2004, Devendra Gupta v. Anurag Mittal and others, relating to offence punishable u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire available in file. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Devendra Gupta filed a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun against the applicants alleging that the marriage of his sister Km. Durgesh Gupta was decided to be solemnized with the applicant Anurag Mittal and the engagement was solemnized on 8.7.2002, in Dehradun, in which the respondent no.2/complainant expended nearabout Rs.60,000/-. It is further alleged that after the engagement, on 13.4.2003, the applicants came to the house of respondent no.2 and demanded Rs.10.00 lacs 2 cash, a new model car, a motor cycle and golden jewellery, in dowry. When the respondent no.2 showed his inability to give the same, the applicants broke the proposed relation of marriage. With these averments, the complaint was filed by respondent no.2 before the C.J.M., Dehradun, which was registered as criminal case no.997 of 2003 in the court of C.J.M., Dehradun, but subsequently it was transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Dehradun, where it was renumbered as criminal case no.932 of 2004. In support of the complainant, the complainant got himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Chandan Singh Chetri, Pandit Jagdamba Prasad Uniyal and Km. Durgesh Gupta were got examined. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the material available, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun, vide order dated 10.2.2004 summoned the applicants u/s 3/4 of the Act and subsequently the criminal proceedings were initiated against them. Being aggrieved by the summoning order dated 10.2.2004 and the criminal proceedings initiated against them, the applicants have preferred the present C482 application before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant Devendra Gupta recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of Chandan Singh Chetri, Pandit Jagdamba Prasad Uniyal and Km. Durgesh Gupta 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 section 3/4 of the Act is made out against the applicants. 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 3 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 and the statement recorded u/Ss 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety as well as on the basis of the documentary evidence, 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 26.6.2005 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 4.8.2010 RG