IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 177 of 2005 Deshraj and others …Petitioners 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 petitioners have sought the relief for quashing the criminal case no. 11 of 2004, State vs. Deshraj and others. They have further prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 15.03.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 2- Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. The Magistrate directed the police to lodge an F.I.R. against the petitioners under Sections 147, 148, 386 and 506 I.P.C. The statement of complainant- respondent no. 2 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The final report was submitted by the police in the case, against which respondent no. 2 filed protest petition. The learned Magistrate finding prima facie against the petitioners summoned them vide order dated 24.06.2004 under Sections 147,148,386 and 506 I.P.C. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred criminal revision before District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar and the same was allowed vide order dated 20.12.2004 and matter was remanded to the trial court to decide 2 afresh. The trial court vide order dated 15.03.2005 summoned the petitioners under Sections 147, 148,506, 386 I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 3- Heard Sri Tapan Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 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 is to be caused to the petitioners at this stage, in case, if they face the trial before the trial court. 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. 3 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. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP