Rakesh Prasad and Others vs State of Uttaranchal 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 further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 30 of 2004, Vijay Singh v. Rakesh and Ors. u/s 147/504/506 IPC, IPC, pending before Special JM First Class, Tehri Garhwal.

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

In brief, the facts of the case are that on 28.3.2004 at about 9-10 AM, the petitioners and co-accused Nandi Lal were constructing a brick-wall (KHADANJA) in order to damage the drinking water pipeline and in this regard in the past also, the complainant/respondent No. 2 also moved applications dated 19.9.2003 and 22.1.2004 before the SDM, Tehri Garhwal. Even on 22.1.2004, SDM Tehri had passed the stay order for constructing a wall over the said pipeline, however even thereafter, the petitioners were doing the said act in order to unnecessary harass him and caused loss to him. When the respondent No. 2 asked the petitioners and co-accused about the reason for doing so, on this the petitioners and co-accused, with the common intention to commit crime, started hurling filthy abuses to him and also threatened to kill him. It was further stated that the petitioners, who were armed with Gainti, Belcha and stones, were intended to commit the crime with intention to kill him, however the respondent No. 2 being came to know about the said intention, ran away from there otherwise the accused could have killed him. After that he went to lodge the report to Patwari but that was not lodged, hence he moved a complaint before the court below. The complainant was himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. while the witnesses Ranvir Singh and Awwal Singh were examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and some documentary evidence was also adduced by the complainant. Learned Special JM, First Class, Tehri Garhwal vide order dated 5.4.2004 after perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, found that the offence punishable u/s 147/504/506 IPC prima facie made out against the accused persons and accordingly summoned them. Against the said order dated 5.4.2004 passed by the trial court, the petitioners and co-accused preferred a revision, which too came out to be dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal vide judgment and order dated 27.10.2004. Assailing the entire proceedings before the trial court, the instant petition has been preferred.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that no offence is made out against them and the court below has wrongly summoned the petitioners. 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 recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of the witnesses, namely, Ranvir Singh and Awwal Singh, recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and the documentary evidence, I find that the offences punishable u/s 147/504/506 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 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 recorded u/s 200 and that of the witnesses recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and the documentary evidence produced by the complainant, 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 dismissed. Interim order dated 24.11.2004 is vacated.