Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 564 (UTT)

RAJEEV KHANNA v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2010-08-11

DHARAM VEER

body2010
JUDGMENT 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 summoning order dated 5.4.2006 as well as the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 464 of 2006, Smt. Mamta Gulati Vs. Rajeev Khanna & others, U/s 406 IPC, pending before JM Kashipur, District US Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 3. In brief, the case of the complainant/respondent no.2 is that she was married with petitioner Rajeev Khanna on 21.11.1996 and her parents and family members gave articles as per status. On 21.8.2005, she was ousted with direction to come back only with Rs. 1.00 lacs in cash from her father and her entire Stridhan has been kept by the petitioners. On 18.9.2005, petitioner no.1 came at the parental house of respondent no.2 where he demanded Rs. 1.00 lac from her father and also hurled filthy abuses to her father and threatened him to his lie. On 19.12.2005 and 2.2.2006, registered notices were given to the petitioners but even then her Stridhan was not returned. Vide order dated 05.04.2006, the court below after analyzing the entire evidence, summoned the petitioners u/s 406 IPC. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of the witnesses, namely, Mohan Lal and Kishan Lal, recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., I find that the offences punishable u/s 406 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. 5. 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. 5. 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 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 complaint as well as the statements of complainant recorded u/s 200 and that of the witness recorded u/s 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. 6. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merits and is hereby accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 07.07.2006 is vacated.