IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 783/2006 Inder Singh Rawat & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 28, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioners have prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 20.6.2006 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 195/2006 Prakash Panwar v. Inder Singh Rawat & Ors. under Section 384, 500, 504, 508 IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag. Petitioners have also prayed to quash the revisional order dated 7.9.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Criminal Revision No. 6/2006 Inder Singh Rawat & Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal and Anr. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners stating that the complainant runs a workshop under the title of “Panwar Furniture House” at Augustmuni in the premises of the petitioners which he had taken on rent. When the complainant constructed his own house at Augustmuni, he desired to vacate the said rented house, then the petitioners locked the rooms from outside and did not allow the complainant to vacate the said rented house. The complainant was also not allowed to carry half of the goods from the rented house, which are still in the illegal possession of the petitioners. It is also alleged that the petitioners were defaming the complainant in the market and making allegation of non-payment of rent. On 16.5.2006, petitioner no. 2 Yogesh Rawat forcibly took Rs. 5000/- from the complainant’s father when he was coming to his home after the treatment. Petitioners also threatened and abused the complainant by saying that they will take the help of God to ruin and destroy him. Petitioners also harassed and threatened the wife of the complainant for the rent. With these averments, the complainant lodged the present complaint before the Magistrate. Learned trial court after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Section 384, 500, 504, 508 IPC is made out against the petitioners and accordingly summoned them vide order dated 20.6.2006. Against the aforesaid summoning order dated 20.6.2006, the petitioners preferred revision, which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag vide order dated 7.9.2006. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners due to the reasons that averments made in the complaint are corroborated by the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC and other documentary evidence produced by the complainant. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners; perusal of complaint, summoning order dated 20.6.2006, revisional order dated 7.9.2006, statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 CrPC and other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case under the aforesaid Sections is made out against the petitioners. Even otherwise, 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. 2 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 and the evidence oral as well as documentary produced against the accused and the statements of witnesses 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 and the learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag has rightly dismissed the revision of the petitioners. 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 dismissed. Interim order dated 29.9.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 28.7.2010 PRABODH 3