IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 556 of 2005 Smt. Matina and others …Applicants/Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. for respondent nos. 1 & 2 None for respondent no. 3 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants/petitioners for quashing the impugned charge sheet of Case No. 390 of 2005 State vs. Naeem and others, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act as well as for setting aside the cognizance order dated 25.5.2005 passed by Ist A.C.J. (J.D.) Roorkee, Haridwar in the aforesaid case. 2- Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent no. 3 against the petitioners and others before the 1st A.C.J. (J.D.) Roorkee, Haridwar, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act and on the basis thereof case was registered against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate after having completed the investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners and took cognizance in the matter vide order dated 25.5.2005. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid cognizance order, the petitioners have preferred the present petition before this Court. 2 3- Heard Mr. Manish Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondent nos. 1 & 2 and perused the record. None appears on behalf of respondent no. 3. 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. 6- Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The stay order, if any, stands vacated. 29-06-2010 SP (B.C. Kandpal, J.)