IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 744/2005 Hari Ram & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 12, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC) has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 24.9.2005 passed in Criminal Case No. 839/2005, Smt. Savitri Devi v. Tilak Ram & Ors. under Section 406 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun. Facts, in brief, are that Jay Hind Singh, father of respondent no. 2 Smt. Savitri Devi lodged an FIR with PS Rajpur on 16.4.2004 with the averments that his daughter Smt. Savitri Devi was married to Tilak Ram 6 years ago and three daughters born out of the said wedlock. The petitioners and co-accused Tilak Ram did not properly look after Smt. Savitri Devi and her children due to which her two daughters died and now Savitri Devi cannot give birth to any child. On 6.4.2004 at 5 pm, Tilak Ram beaten Smt. Savitri Devi with fists and kicks in which she suffered injuries. When the complainant tried to convince him, then Tilak Ram and the petitioners told him that there is no need of his daughter and ousted Smt. Savitri Devi from the house and also abused them and threatened to kill Savitri Devi. It is also the case of the prosecution that the Stridhan of Smt. Savitri Devi was not returned to her. A notice in this regard was sent to the accused but even then her stridhan was not returned. On the basis of the FIR, a case was registered against the petitioners and other co-accused. After the investigation, the I.O. submitted a chargesheet against the petitioners and the other co-accused, on the basis of which learned Judicial Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the offence against the petitioners and the other co-accused vide order dated 24.9.2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in this argument due to the reason that from the perusal of the contents of FIR and statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and other evidence collected by the I.O., a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners under the aforesaid section. The dispute involves factual question which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record. 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. If the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and the statements of witnesses recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners have rightly been summoned. 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. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 26.10.2005 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.7.2010 PRABODH 2 3