IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 620 of 2004 Bhagat Ram …Applicant/Petitioner Versus C.J.M. Tehri Garhwal and others …Respondents Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. for respondent no. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant/petitioner for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2036 of 2004 (State vs. Bhagat Ram) pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal. 2- Brief facts of the case are that complainant- respondent no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner alleging therein that petitioner made an attempt to get the amount of claim of the complainant which is an offence cognizable under Sections 420,467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. After completion of the investigation of the case, final report was submitted by the police in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. Against the final report protest petition was filed by respondent no. 2, in which learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the petitioner vide order dated 23.8.2004. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 3- Heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for 2 respondent nos. 1 & 3 and perused the record. None appears 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 in this case at this stage. 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. Stay order dated 24.12.2004 stands vacated. 29-06-2010 SP (B.C. Kandpal, J.)