IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.313 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Subodh and four others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and two others …………Respondents Dated: July 19, 2010 Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent nos.1 and 2 None for respondent no.3 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 applicants have sought quashing of the charge sheet of O.S. No.151 of 2006, State v. Subodh Kumar u/Ss 143, 341 and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act (for short the Act) as well as quashing of the order dated 28.2.2006, by which Ist Addl. District Judge (J.D.), Roorkee has taken the cognizance against the applicants. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. Brief facts of the case are that Yogendra Singh (respondent no.3) lodged a report at P.S. Manglore on 17.11.2005 stating therein that he along with the police party, during the investigation related to Crime No.270 of 2005, reached at Manglore Deoband Road Teraha to take the dead body of Km. Shalu, where the dead body of the deceased was lying but the applicants along with 100-150 other persons wrongfully restrained the National Highway and stopped the traffic from both the sides. With the same averments, the First Information Report was lodged by 2 respondent no.3 Yogendra Singh, Station Officer at P.S. Manglore, District Haridwar on 17.11.2005. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and after completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against the applicants and other co-accused on the basis of which a criminal case no.151 of 2006 was registered and criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicants. Against the said charge sheet and the summoning order dated 28.2.2006, the applicants have preferred this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating the fact that the I.O. during the course of investigation has found sufficient evidence against the applicants and on the basis of credible evidence, he has submitted the charge sheet against the applicants. From a perusal of the contents of the First Information Report and after going through other papers available in file, prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections 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 persons 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 First Information Report are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety as well as on the basis of the evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation, I am of the view that the charge sheet is rightly submitted against the applicants and the criminal proceedings are accordingly rightly initiated against the 3 applicants. 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 C482application, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 12.5.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 19.07.2010 RG