IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.632 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Bobby Pal and others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: July 19, 2010 Mr. S.K. Shandiliya, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 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 applicants have sought quashing of the Complaint Case No.991 of 2006, Sripal Singh v. Bobby Pal and others, under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as quashing of the summoning order dated 2.5.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. Brief facts of the case are that Sripal Singh filed a complaint against the applicants with the allegations that his daughter Smt. Kavita got married to the applicant Bobby Pal in the year 2003 as per Hindu RITES. In the marriage, he had given dowry beyond his status, however, the applicants were not satisfied with the dowry given and due to this reason, they used to harass his daughter mentally and physically. His daughter used to tell him about all these facts. It is further alleged that on 27.8.2005 the applicants ousted his daughter from the house for the demand of 2 dowry, who after coming to house, told the entire incident to him and also told that the applicants has made a demand of Rs.25,000/-. Since then his daughter is living with the complainant. On 30.10.2005 at 5:30 PM, the applicants came to his house and demanded Rs.25,000/-. When he showed his inability to give the same, the applicants committed marpeet with the complainant and his daughter. On hearing the noise, Bhura and Bijendra Singh arrived, who saved the complainant and his daughter from the applicants. Thereafter, the applicants forcibly taken his daughter along with them and asked to give Rs.25,000/- within one month and threatened that in case their demand is not fulfilled they would kill his daughter. Information to this effect was given by the complainant in the police station but no action was taken. Thereafter, on 4.11.2005, he moved an application before S.S.P., Haridwar but to no avail. Thereafter, this complaint was filed by the complainant Sripal Singh, which was registered as Complaint Case No.991 of 2006. In support of his complaint, the complainant got examined himself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Smt. Kavita was got examined. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the entire material available, learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar vide his order dated 2.5.2006, took the cognizance against the applicants under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 2.5.2006, the applicants have preferred the present C482 application before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant Sripal Singh recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of Smt. Kavita recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., I am of the view that prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections is made out against the applicants. 3 Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as 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 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 recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. 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 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 C482application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 4.8.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 19.07.2010 RG