Ashok Kumar and Another vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Dharam Veer, J.—Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicants, Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State and Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners/applicants have sought quashing of summoning order dated 6.6.2005 passed by CJM Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 2084/2005, under Sections 420, 467, 471, 328, 343 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and the charge sheet as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising out of aforesaid case.

Brief facts of the case are that are that respondent No. 3 lodged a First Information Report at P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar against the applicants and one another alleging therein that her husband had been in the wrongful confinement of the applicants and, by intoxicating her husband and putting him under threat of life, the applicants got executed a sale deed by him in their favour. It is further alleged that the applicant Ashok is a suspended employee from Sahkari Samiti Badshapur and he has a criminal history. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged by respondent No. 3. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet against the applicants in the court. On the basis of the charge sheet, a criminal case No. 2084 of 2005 was registered against the applicants and the learned CJM, Haridwar, vide his order dated 6.6.2005, summoned the applicants and another and subsequently criminal proceedings were initiated against them. Hence, this petition.

Counter affidavits have been filed by the State as well as by respondent No. 3 in which the averments made in the C482 application have been denied.

From a perusal of the contents of the First Information Report and the statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. 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 applicants.

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 u/s 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 in 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 charge sheet is rightly submitted against the applicants and the applicants are accordingly rightly 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, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 2.3.2006 stands vacated.