IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.381 OF 2005 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Ram Rohitas Yadav …………Applicant Versus The State and another …………Respondent Dated: July 07, 2010 Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 Mr. Mahavir Singh Tyagi, Advocate 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 22.7.2004 as well as quashing of the cognizance and summoning order dated 28.3.2005. It is further prayed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.925/2005, State Vs. Ram Rohitas Yadav. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 was member of Giddhawali Cooperative Soceity, Thana Khanpur, District Haridwar and the applicant was Secretary of said society. On 2.6.1997, the respondent no.2 had gone to the applicant for obtaining loan for fertilizers and had given his passbook and cheque book to the applicant for the same and had obtained a loan of Rs.14,938/-. It is alleged that on the same day, the applicant dishonestly and with the intention of cheating, took out a cheque bearing no.153676 from his cheque book and fraudulently took a loan of Rs.21,808.80 by forging the signatures of the 2 respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 could know about the aforesaid forgery and cheating when he received recovery notices from the society. When the respondent no.2 moved applications before the higher officials, an enquiry was conducted and it was found that the loan was fraudulently obtained by the applicant. With the same averments, Virendra Singh (respondent no.2) lodged the First Information Report against the applicant Ram Rohitas Yadav at Police Station Khanpur, District Haridwar on 17.12.2003 and a case was registered as Case Crime No.71 of 2003 under Section 420 of IPC against the applicant. Thereafter the matter was investigated by the I.O. and after completing the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet against the applicant under Section 420 of IPC in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Lakshar, District Haridwar. On the basis of the charge sheet, the said court summoned the applicant and criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant. Against the aforesaid charge sheet dated 22.7.2004 and the summoning order dated 28.3.2005, the applicant has preferred this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of State in which the averments made in the C482 application have been denied. From a perusal of the contents of the First Information Report and the counter affidavit as well as after perusing the other documents on record, a case u/s 420 of IPC is prima facie clearly made out against the applicant and the trial court has rightly summoned 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 jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court 3 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 judge. If the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the applicant 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 merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 18.6.2005 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 07.07.2010 RG