IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 51/2005 Prakash Chandra Sharma and another .. Petitioners. Versus State of Uttaranchal & another .. Respondents. Mr.Lalit Sharma, learened counsel for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned AGA for State. None appeared for respondent No.2. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.(Oral) Dated: 15-04-2010 By way of this petition, U/S 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16-11- 2001, passed by A.C.J.M. Roorkee in Misc. Case No. 165/2001, and order dated 4-1-2005, passed by Ist Civil Judge (J.D.), Roorkee in complaint case No. 622/2003, Vinod Kumar Chauhan Vs. Prakash Chandra Sharma and others. Brief facts of the case are that on the application of respondent No.2, Vinod Prakash Chauhan, filed U/S 156(3) Cr.P.C., case was registered against the applicants at P.S. Manglaur and the police after completing the investigation submitted final report in the matter. The complainant filed protest petition against the final report. The learned A.C.J.M., Roorkee after going through the case diary and considering the facts mentioned in the protest petition, found a prima facie case against the accused/applicants U/Ss 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and vide impugned order dated 16-11-2001, took cognizance in the matter. It appears that the case was transferred to the Court 2 of Ist Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) Roorkee for disposal. The accused/applicants did not appear before the trial court, therefore, the learned Ist. Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) Roorkee, vide order dated 4.1.2005 issued non-bailable warrants against the accused/applicants. Hence this petition. Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the respondent/State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants and the learned Magistrate has committed a manifest error by rejecting the final report and taking cognizance in the matter. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, I do not find any force in the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants. Perusal of order dated 16.11.2001 reveals that the complainant has made specific allegations against the accused/applicants that they abused him and beated him with kicks and fists and he was saved by Bijendra Singh, Vijay Pal Singh and Sukhbir Singh at the hands of accused/applicants. Along with protest petition affidavits of Bijendra Singh and Vijay Pal Singh have also been filed before the learned Magistrate, and the learned Magistrate after finding a prima facie case, took the cognizance against the accused/applicants. It further reveals that the accused did not appear before the trial Magistrate, therefore, non-bailable warrants were issued against them. I do not find any abuse of process of court in the instant case. 3 It is also noteworthy here that in a proceeding U/S 482 Cr.P.C. this court is not supposed to act as a trial judge. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry at this stage, specially under the circumstances when the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. In view of above discussion, the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim stay order dated 27-01-2005, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB