IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.842 OF 2005 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Abhilash Kumar …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and two others …………Respondents Dated: July 22, 2010 Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent nos.1 and 3 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 petitioner/applicant has sought quashing of the charge sheet dated 3.8.2003 filed against the applicant and two others in Case Crime No.161/99 u/Ss 420, 468, 467, 471 of IPC, P.S. Rudrapur, District U.S. Nagar. It is further prayed to quash the summoning order dated 23.10.2003 passed in Criminal Case No.5647 of 2003, State v. Triveni Prasad and others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. In brief, the facts of the case are that Sri Anand Singh Dhoni, Assistant Commandant, 46th P.A.C., Task Force, Rudrapur, lodged a First Information Report against the present applicant and others with the allegations that in the year 1998, at the time of recruitment at P.A.C., Rudrapur, the applicant submitted a false affidavit regarding pendency of criminal cases against him and has violated terms of entry 11 of the Affidavit. On the basis of this F.I.R., 2 a case u/Ss 420/467/468/471 of IPC was registered against the applicant. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and, on completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet against the applicant in the court, on the basis of which, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, vide his order dated 23.10.2003 summoned the applicant and criminal proceedings were subsequently initiated against him. Against the said charge sheet and the summoning order dated 23.10.2003, the applicant has preferred this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. A supplementary counter affidavit of Ganesh Prasad Baunthiyal, Station House Officer, P.S. Rudrapur, has been filed by the State in which it is stated that the applicant in his affidavit had written Nil about his criminal history. However, the applicant was having criminal history i.e. Case Crime No.61/97, u/Ss 325/323/504/506 of IPC at P.S. Sirsaganj, District Firojabad, at the time of recruitment. The said affidavit is annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit. Para-7 of the said affidavit reads as under:- ß7& ;g fd vijkf/kd ekeys tks esjs fo:) U;k;ky; esa pys vkSj ftuesa nf.Mr gqvk@nks"keqDr gqvk@fMLpktZ gqvk mudk fooj.k fuEuor gS%& ;fn lwpuk 'kwU; gks rks 'kwU; 'kCn vafdr fd;k tk;sA 'kwU;** From a perusal of the contents of the First Information Report and the supplementary counter affidavit as well as after going through the contents of Para-7 of the affidavit filed by the applicant at the time of recruitment, 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 3 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 evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation, I am of the view that the charge sheet is rightly submitted against the applicant and the applicant has accordingly 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 29.11.2005 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 22.07.2010 RG