IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 246 of 2005 Mangey Ram and another …Applicants/Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …Respondents Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate for the petitioners 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 applicants/petitioners for quashing the entire proceedings originated from charge sheet submitted by the police of P.S. Gang Nahar Roorkee Haridwar in Case Crime No. 124 of 2003 under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee District Haridwar. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing the subsequent cognizance order dated 25.2.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee and order dated 3.2.2007 passed by FTC/ADJ, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2- Brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent no. 2 against the petitioners before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar and on the basis thereof Case Crime No. 124 of 2003 was registered against the petitioners under Sections 420/467/468/442/504/506/120-B I.P.C. The learned Magistrate having finding prima facie case against the petitioners took cognizance against the petitioners and summoned them vide order dated 23.7.2004. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred 2 the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 3- Heard Mr. Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 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 in this case at this stage. 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. 5- The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 3 6- Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Stay order, if any, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 29-06-2010 SP