IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.962 OF 2006 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Netra Pal & others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents Dated: July 26, 2010 Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, Adv. for the applicants Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 Sri MS Tyagi, Adv. for the 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 entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.162 of 2005, Megh Raj Vs. Netra Pal & others, U/s 452/323/504/506 IPC, pending before J.M., Laksar, Distt. Haridwar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 20.2.2005 at about 8 AM, the complainant Megh Raj was going in his village and at that time the petitioners were beating their brother Mahipal on the allegation of theft of a Trolley. The complainant intervened and saved Mahipal due to which the petitioners started keeping enmity with him. On 22.3.2005 at about 6 PM, when the complainant was sitting in his house, the petitioners entered inside his house and hurled filthy abuses and when the complainant resisted to it, the petitioners started beating him with fists and kicks. The petitioner no.2 Khadku brought a Tamancha and pointed out towards the complainant on which the complainant climbed on his roof and on raising alarm by him, Ajmer, Rajveer and several others persons arrived there on which the petitioners went away. The complainant thereafter tried to lodge the report, however all was in vain. The complainant Meghraj got himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. while the witnesses, Kallu and Ajmer were examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and in documentary evidence, he produced the copy of applications given by 2 him to SO Laksar and SSP as well as copy of receipt of registry. Vide order dated 15.4.2005, the court below summoned the petitioners u/s 452/323/504/506 IPC. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision which came to be dismissed by the III FTC/Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide judgment and order dated 16.12.2005. Assailing the orders dated 15.4.2005 and 16.12.2005, the petitioners preferred a Criminal Application No.247 of 2006 before this Court. In that application, this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.4.2006 quashed the aforesaid summoning order dated 15.4.2005 passed by the J.M. Laksar and the judgment and order dated 16.12.2005 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar and remitted back the case to the Magistrate concerned to decide the same afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment and the petitioner was disposed of. Thereafter, the learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M. Laksar vide order dated 19.8.2006 found the offences u/s 452/323/ 504/506 IPC prima facie made out against the petitioners and accordingly summoned them. Hence this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that no offence is made out against them and the court below has wrongly summoned them. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the complaint lodged by the respondent no.2, the statements of the complainant Meghraj recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of the witnesses, namely, Kallu and Ajmer, recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., I find that the offences punishable u/s 452/323/504/506 IPC are prima facie made out against the petitioners on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the petitioners to face trial. Even the trial court has rightly held in its judgment that the question as to whether the instant complaint has been lodged falsely due to enmity would be decided on merits only after recording of the evidence. 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 3 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 the statements of complainant recorded u/s 200 and that of the witness recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners have 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 29.11.2006 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 26, 2010 Rdang