Pooran Bahadur and Another vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

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 order dated 10.8.2010 as well as the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1184 of 2010, Rajendra v. Pooran Bahadur and Ors., u/s 452/323/504/506 IPC and 3/10 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), pending before the court of J.M. Rudrapur, Distt. US Nagar.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 2-Rajendra filed a complaint stating therein that his son had solemnized love marriage with Geeta in 2005, who is the daughter of petitioner No. 1-Puran Bahadur, due to which the complainant had cut off the relations with his son Rakesh and he also expelled his son from his movable and immovable property. From this marriage, the parents of Geeta were not happy because the complainant is a member of the Scheduled Caste while the family of Geeta belonging to upper caste and for this reason, the petitioners were having enmity with the complainant. On 6.5.2010 at 6 PM, petitioners Puran Bahadur and Nagendra Bahadur suddenly entered inside the complainant''s house and started hurling filthy abuses and petitioner Nagendra beaten him with Dandas while the petitioner Puran Bahadur beaten him with wooden stick. Petitioner Puran Bahadur also beaten the son of complainant, namely, Ishwar. On hearing the noise, Ajay Pratap and several other persons arrived there and the petitioners went away by uttering caste indicated words and threatening to kill him in future. The complainant got himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. while u/s 202 Cr.P.C., Smt. Sundar, Ishwar Kumar and Ajay Pratap were examined. Vide order dated 10.8.2010, the trial court summoned the petitioners u/s 452/323/504/506 IPC and 3/10 of the Act. Hence this petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner 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 respondent No. 2, the statements of the complainant 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 452/323/504/506 IPC and 3/10 of the Act 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 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 complaint as well as the statements of complainant and that of witnesses recorded u/s 200 and 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 in limime.