IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.997 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Avdesh Singh …………Applicant Versus The State and another …………Respondents Dated: October 7, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/applicant has sought quashing of charge sheet submitted in case crime no.74 of 2005 as well as the order dated 28.4.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in Misc. Criminal Case No.67 of 2006, relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC). Facts, in brief, are that respondent no.2 Regional Transport Officer, Dehradun, lodged an FIR against the applicant and others alleging therein that the applicant and some other co- accused, transferred their vehicles from Delhi to Dehradun and got registered their vehicles at Dehradun by producing forged registration certificate and N.O.C., as genuine. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, the I.O. filed charge sheet against the applicant and others. On receipt of charge sheet, vide order dated 28.4.2006, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, took the cognizance of the offence and summoned the applicant and others. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 2 From a perusal of the contents of the First Information Report and the statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and after going through other papers available in file, I am of the view that prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections is made out against the applicant. 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., 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 FIR as well as the statements recorded u/s 161 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 C482 application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 6.12.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 7.10.2010 RG