IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.824 OF 2009 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Deepak S/o Ramgopal …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another …………Respondents Dated: November 5, 2009 Sri Parikshit Saini, Adv. for the applicant Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This is an application moved u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) by the applicant for quashing the order-dated 8.5.2009 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/III FTC, Haridwar in S.T. No.325 of 2008, State Vs. Deepak & others. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Jaipal Singh lodged an FIR at P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar on 13.12.2007 at 11:55 P.M. with the averments that his daughter Km. Rupali had gone in the morning of 10.12.2007 at 7:00 A.M. but she did not come back house till evening. On enquiry, his younger daughter Km. Vaishali disclosed that the applicant-accused Deepak along with his friend Sachin had taken his daughter Km. Rupali in the motorcycle outside her school. While going, the accused and his friend also threatened Km. Rupali that if she would disclose this incident to anyone, then she would also be lifted. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and the victim was also recovered and her medical examination was conducted and the I.O. after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the applicant u/s 376 IPC and one punishable u/s 3(1)(12) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act. Thereafter, the statement of the victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which she stated against the applicant-accused as under: - “lfpu fcydqy csdlwj gSA mldh dgha ij Hkh dksbZ xYrh ugha gSA lkjk dlwj nhid dk gSA geus HCL ds “kks:e ls ,d dEI;wVj [kjhnk ftldks Bhd djus nhid iq= jkexksiky fuoklh xzke tekyiqj dyk vDlj gekjs ?kj vkrk jgrk FkkA ftlls esytksy ds dkj.k ge nksusa ,d nwljs dks pkgus yxs rFkk gekjs chp vkil esa I;kj gks x;kA bl I;kj dk nhid us xYr Qk;nk mBkuk “kq: dj fn;kA ge nksuks efUnj vkfn ?kweus tkrs FksA tgka ij nhid us esjh QksVksa [khaph vkSj fQj nhid us esjs lkFk “kkjhfjd lEcU/k cukus dh ftn dhA tc eSaus euk fd;k rks mlus dgk fd vxj rqeus esjs lkFk “kkjhfjd lEcU/k ugah cuk;s eSa rqEgkjh ;s QksVks ehfM;k dks ns nwaxkA vkSj mlus eq>ls dgk fd eSaus rqEgkjh lh0Mh0 Hkh cuk j[kh gSA ml le; eSa 16 lky dh FkhA nhid us eq>ls dgk fd tc rqe 18 lky dh gks tk;sxh rks fQj eSa rqEgkjs lkFk “kknh dj nwaxkA bl izdkj nhid us esjh bPNk ds foijhr tcjnLrh eq>ls “kkjhfjd lEcU/k cuk;s vkSj yxkrkj eq>s /kedh nsdj esjk cykRdkj djrk jgkA eSa vius “keZ ds dkj.k pqi jghA ,d ckj eSaus blh dkj.k ls xaxkth esa Nykax yxk nh FkhA ijUrq fdLer ls eSa cp x;hA bl ij esjs ?kj esa eq>s cgqr ekjk ihVkA nhid dh ckr esjs ikik dks Hkh ekywe py x;h FkhA bl ij os cgqr MkaVrs FksA eSa cgqr ruko esa jgrh FkhA ,d fnu nhid eq>s vius ?kj ys x;kA mlds eka cki us eq>s ilUn dj fn;k FkkA ijUrq ckn esa og eqdj x;s nhid us eq>ls dgk fd rqe pekj gksA gfjtu gks bl dkj.k vc eSa rqels “kknh ugha d:axkA tc eSus vius ckjs esa nhid dks igys gh crk j[kk FkkA tc esa 18 lky dh gks x;h rks eSus nhid ls “kknh ds fy, dgk rks bl ij nhid HkMd x;k vkSj eq>ls dgus yxk fd fdlh pekj dh csVh ls “kknh ugha d:waxk tks rq>ls gksrk gS dj ysA nhid us eq>ls dgk fd tc eSa rqels dgwaxk rqe esjs lkFk “kkjhfjd lEcU/k cukvksxhA ugha rks eSa rqEgsa cnuke dj nwaxkA bl ij eSa cgqr ruko esa FkhA ,d rjQ nhid eq>ls yxkrkj “kkjhfjd “kks’k.k djrs gq;s ekufld ijs”kku dj jgk Fkk rks nwljh rjQ eSa vius ?kjokyksa ds O;ogkj ls ijs”kku FkhA ,d fnu eSaus Vh0oh0 esa fdjuosnh dh lkekftd laLFkk uo T;ksfr QkmUMs”ku fnYyh ds ckjs esa lquk rFkk blds ckjs esa ,d if=dk esa Ik<+kA if=dk esa fn, x, Qksu ua0 ij lEidZ dj eS eu ,oa “kkjhfjd “kkfUr ds fy, fnukad 10-12-07 dks izkr% 7-00 cts lqcg Ldwy tkrs le; ?kj NksM+dj Lo;a dh bPNk ls fnYyh mDr laLFkk esa pyh x;hA bl izdkj esjk fdlh us vigj.k ugha fd;kA eSa Lo;a gh ?kj ls pyh x;h FkhA ijUrq ;g lp gS fd fiNys nks lky ls nhid esjk “kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld “kks’k.k dj jgk FkkA ftlds dkj.k eSaus viuk ?kj NksM+kA nks ckj eSa :Mdh lfpu ds lkFk ,d rkaf=d ls feyus t:j x;h FkhA ijUrq blesa nhid ds vfrfjDr fdlh dk dksbZ nks’k ugha gS” A perusal of the above-said quoted statement of victim Km. Rupali goes to clearly show that the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and one punishable u/s 3(1)12 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes, [Prevention of Atrocities] Act is prima facie clearly made out against the applicant and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the applicant to face trial. 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 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 as well as in the statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. 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 in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) November 5, 2009 Rajeev Dang