IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Stay Application No.1258 of 2010 In Criminal Misc. Application No.1059 of 2010 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Haseen Khan and three others ………Applicants Versus Smt. Ansar Jahan ………Respondent Dated: November 10, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the applicants and perused the material available in file. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the summoning order dated 21.4.2010 passed in Crl. Case No.1637 of 2010, Smt. Ansar Jahan v. Shahid Khan and others, relating to offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Facts, in brief are that the respondent Smt. Ansar Jahan moved an application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before J.M., Kashipur stating that she was married to co-accused Shahid Khan on 27.6.2005 and in the marriage her parents gave dowry as per their status. It is alleged that the behaviour of the applicants and other accused was normal with her for six months but thereafter they started harassing her mentally and physically for the demand of dowry. It is alleged that the applicants have left her three years ago. It is further alleged that on 20.2.2010 her husband and father-in-law came to her parental house and threatened her that in case ` 2.00 Lacs is not paid to them within two days, her husband will solemnize another marriage. With these averments, the present application u/s 156(3) was moved 2 by the respondent. On the said application, learned Magistrate directed to register the case as complaint case. Thereafter, the complainant was examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C Hanif Khan and Mohd. Abid were examined. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the material available, learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur , vide his order dated 21.4.2010, summoned the applicants and others under Sections 323, 498-A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Feeling aggrieved, the applicants have preferred the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the allegations shown against the applicants are false and frivolous. He also submitted that the applicants have no concern whatsoever with the offences in respect of which they have been summoned by the trial court. I do not find force in the argument of learned counsel for the applicants for the reason that from a perusal of the contents of the complaint and the statement of complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of witnesses, namely, Hanif Khan and Mohd. Abid, recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. 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 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 complaint and the statement of complainant and witnesses recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, 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 3 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 is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Stay Application No.1258 of 2010 also stands dismissed). (Dharam Veer, J.) 10.11.2010 RG