IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 142 of 2005 Mrs. Nirmala @ Neelu …Petitioner Versus State and another …Respondents Dated:16-04-2010 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought the relief for quashing the complaint dated 10.06.2004 giving rise to Criminal Case No.363 of 2004 pending in the court of First Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. The petitioner has further sought the relief for quashing the summoning order dated 20.08.2004 passed by First Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 2- Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrarte, Haridwar on 10.6.2004 which has been registered as Criminal Case No.363 of 2004. The statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The learned Magistrate having finding prima facie case against the petitioner summoned him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 20.8.2004. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 2 3- Heard Sri Amit Kapri, Advocate holding brief of Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1 and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2. 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner 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 is to be caused to the petitioner at this stage, in case, if he faces the trial before the trial court. There is nothing on record which may indicate that the court below by summoning the petitioner 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. 5- The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6- Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim stay order, if any, stands vacated. 3 7- Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this court towards Annexure-2 to the application, which is receipt dated 28.1.2004 indicating therein that the petitioner had already paid the money amounting to Rs.75000/- to the complainant. 8- In case, if it is so, the trial court shall take this aspect into account and shall consider the matter in accordance with law. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP