IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.685 OF 2009 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Virendra Kumar & another …………Applicants Versus Surenra Kumar …………Respondent Dated: August 11, 2010 Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, Adv. for the applicants Sri Bhupendra Singh, Adv. for the respondent HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the summoning order dated 15.7.2009 as well as the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No.222 of 2009, Surendra Kumar Vs. Virendra Kumar & others, U/s 427/504/506 IPC, pending before Ist Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.)/JM Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the case of the complainant/respondent is that on 8.2.2009 at about 8 AM, when he was in his field, he saw that the petitioners along with co-accused were demolishing the wall of his field. When the complainant stopped the accused, they hurled filthy abuses and threatened him to his life. The accused thus caused a loss of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. Complainant informed the same to the PS Bhagwanpur but no action was taken and he also gave application to SSP concerned but when nothing was done, he moved the complaint. The complainant was examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. while the witnesses, Sanjay and Sudhir were examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 15.7.2009, the court below summoned the petitioner u/s 427/504/506 IPC. Hence this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that no offence is made out against them and the court below has wrongly summoned them. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the complaint lodged by the complainant, the statements of 2 the complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of the witnesses recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., I find that the offences punishable u/s 427/504/506 IPC are prima facie made out against the petitioners on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the petitioners to face trial. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as that 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 as well as the statements of complainant recorded u/s 200 and that of the witnesses recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., 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. 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 merits and is hereby accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 11.9.09 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 11, 2010 Rdang