IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 327/2005 Mahendra Kumar Jain .. Petitioner Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others ..Respondents Mr. Manish Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State. Mr. S. Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Dated: 18-05-2010 [Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral)] By way of this petition, U/S 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the charge sheet of case No. 823/2005, State vs. Mahendra Kumar, U/Ss 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. as well as quashing the summoning order dated 21.3.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, in above mentioned case. The record reveals that the respondent No.3, Nagendra Kumar lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner with the police. The police after 2 investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused/petitioner U/Ss 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Thereafter the learned Magistrate on receipt of charge sheet, perused the case diary and entire material collected by police during investigation and on finding a prima facie case against the accused U/Ss 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. took cognizance in the matter and issued summon against the accused/petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, by the charge sheet submitted by police as well as summoning order, the petitioner has moved this petition before this court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and the learned Magistrate has committed a manifest error by taking cognizance against the petitioner. Having considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the documents available on record, I am of the view that there is no flagrant injustice and abuse of process of court in this case. The learned Magistrate 3 has passed the summoning order after perusing the case diary and entire evidence collected during investigation. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility of the evidence at this stage. Any judgment rendered by me would amount to premature judgment where the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. The applicant shall have an opportunity to place the evidence in his defence before the trial court where the matter shall be finally adjudicated after considering the entire evidence. I do not find any merit in this case at this stage and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim stay order dated 20-6-2005 stands vacated. However, in case the petitioner appears before the court concerned, in order to obtain the bail, the court concerned shall expedite the hearing of bail application, without causing any unreasonable delay. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 4