IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.619 OF 2004 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Arun Kumar …………Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents Dated: July 9, 2010 Sri Jagdish Bisht, Adv. for the applicant Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, Adv. i/b Sri Vivek Shukla, Adv. for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the order-dated 11.6.2004 passed by JM, Haridwar in Case No.353/2004, Sunita Vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and further to quash the complaint filed by the respondent no.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Sunita-respondent no.2 preferred a complaint stating therein that she got married with Ajay Sharma (brother of petitioner) on 15.2.1997 as per Hindu RITES and her family members gave Stridhan as per their status, which was taken into custody by her husband and his family members, list whereof was also annexed with the complaint. However, the petitioners were not satisfied with the dowry given and for this reason, they started coercing her for bringing Rs.2.00 lacs in cash in dowry and on being failed to do so, she was ousted from the house. When the respondent no.2 demanded her Stridhan, the petitioner and his family members refused to give the same to her. On 2 8.1.2004, she also sent a notice through Registered Post and UPC seeking her Stridhan to be returned within 15 days, however even after expiry of that period, Stridhan was not returned and the petitioners continued to retain the same in their custody. Hence, she moved the instant complaint. The complainant’s statement was also recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. while u/s 202 Cr.P.C., she got examined Purshottam as PW1 and Dinesh Chaudhary as PW2. Besides the oral evidence, in documentary evidence, she adduced the list of articles given in dowry, notice sent to the petitioner and his family members as well as the receipts of registered post. On perusing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar vide order dated 11.6.2004 took cognizance and summoned the petitioner u/s 406/120-B IPC. Assailing that order, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that no offence is made out against them and the petitioner has been wrongly summoned by the court below. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant, the statements of the complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. as well as the statements of the witnesses, namely, Purshottam and Dinesh Chaudhary, offences punishable u/s 406/120-B IPC, prima facie made out against the petitioner on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the petitioner to face trial. 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., the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or 3 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 as well as in the statements recorded of complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. as well as the documentary evidence, are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner has 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 application C482 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 24.12.2004 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 9, 2010 Rdang