IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 342 of 2005 Sushil Chauhan …Applicant/Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …Respondents Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the 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 summoning order dated 12.04.2005 passed by 1st Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar as well as the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 75 of 2005 Smt. Kunti vs. Paras Chauhan and others, under Sections 120(B) and 307 I.P.C., pending in the court of 1st Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 2- Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by respondent no. 2 against the petitioner as well as one Paras Chauhan before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, under Sections 307 and 120(B) I.P.C. and on the basis thereof Criminal Case No. 75 of 2005 was registered against the petitioner. The statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate having finding prima facie case against the petitioner, Paras Chauhan and Aansu Chauhan summoned them vide order dated 12.4.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the said summoning order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 2 3- Heard Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1 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 07.06.2005 stands vacated. 29-06-2010 SP (B.C. Kandpal, J.)