IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.157 OF 2006 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Naresh Kumar Gupta …………Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents Dated: July 16, 2010 Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, Adv. for the applicant Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondents 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 impugned order dated 5.9.2005 passed by the J.M. Ramnagar in Criminal Case No.795/2005, State Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta, U/s 182 IPC. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that petitioner preferred an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the J.M., Ramnagar U/s 386/452/504/506 IPC against Smt. Uma Devi & others. Thereafter, the matter was investigated by the I.O. and after completion of investigation, the final report was submitted and the I.O. also submitted his report against the petitioner u/s 182 I.P.C. on 20.3.2005. On perusing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital vide order dated 5.9.2005 took cognizance and summoned the petitioner to face trial u/s 182 Cr.P.C. Assailing the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been wrongly summoned by the court below U/s 182 Cr.P.C. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that the petitioner filed an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis of which the case was registered against Smt. Uma Devi & others, U/s 386/452/504/506 IPC showing the dates of incident as 18.10.2004 and 23.10.2004. The I.O. after conducting the investigation came to the conclusion that due to previous enmity and the money dispute, the petitioner filed the FIR. Accordingly, the I.O. after conducting the investigation, submitted final report and also submitted a report against the petitioner U/s 182 I.P.C. Even the learned Magistrate after considering the entire documentary evidence on record, found that the offence punishable u/s 182 IPC is made out against the petitioner and accordingly, he took cognizance and rightly summoned the petitioner to face trial. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case 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 police report are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner 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 merits and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 9.03.2006 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 16, 2010 Rdang