IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 95 of 2005 Ram Bahadur Thappa & others …Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. for respondent nos. 1 & 2 Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for respondent no. 3 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants/petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 702 of 2004 and setting aside the summoning order dated 17.9.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. 2- Brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. was filed by respondent no. 3 against the petitioners before Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag, and on the basis thereof Criminal Complaint Case No. 702 of 2004 was registered against the petitioners. The statements of the complainant and one witness Puran Singh were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate having finding prima facie case against the petitioners took cognizance against the petitioners and summoned them vide order dated 17.9.2004. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 2 3- Heard Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondent nos. 1 & 2, Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and perused the record. 4- The learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance in the matter after considering the entire material collected by the police during the course of investigation and no abuse of process of court would be caused to the accused petitioners, if the case proceeds before the trial court. The evidence in the case is still incomplete and hazy. This court is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to allegations levelled against the petitioners at this stage. Any judgment rendered by this Court would amount to pre-trial. It is the job of the trial judge to decide the matter on the basis of evidence to be colleted before it and then to decide the case on merits. However, I do not find any abuse of process of court and any flagrant injustice in this case at this stage. There is nothing on record which may indicate that the court below by summoning the petitioners as accused has committed any manifest error which may warrant the interference of this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5- Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Stay order dated 25.02.2005 stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 09-07-2010 SP