IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.676 OF 2006 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Vakil Ahmad …………Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal & others …………Respondents Dated: August 6, 2010 Sri DCS Rawat, Adv. for the applicant Sri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 & 3 Sri Sudhir Singh, 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 charge sheet, cognizance order dated 30.9.2005 and the proceedings in Criminal Case No.489 of 2005, State Vs. Vakil, U/s 406 IPC pending before J.M. Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2- Maneshwar Prasad, who does the work of Hire Purchase, financed a Truck to the petitioners. However the petitioner did not pay the financed amount even after repeated reminders and the petitioner in collusion with co-accused Mohd. Ibrahim, Salabbuddin and Sahabuddin alienated the Truck in question and thus committed the breach of trust. Thereafter the matter was investigated and after completing the investigation, the IO filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and co-accused on the basis of which on 30.9.2005, learned J.M. Kotdwar took cognizance and summoned the petitioner and co-accused. Hence this petition. Respondent no.2 has also filed his counter affidavit in which the allegations made in the petition have been denied. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no offence is made out against him and the court below has wrongly summoned him. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal 2 of the FIR lodged by the respondent no.2, the statements of the complainant Maneshwar Prasad and that of the witnesses, namely, Jagmohan Singh, Nasim, Prem Singh, Rajeev Aggarwal and others recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., I find that the offence punishable u/s 406 IPC is 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 that 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 FIR as well as the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. 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 merits and is hereby accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 19.08.2006 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 6, 2010 Rdang