IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 62 of 2005 Pavnesh Seth @ Raja …Petitioner Versus Judicial Magistrate and others …Respondents Dated:16-04-2010 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought the relief for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.419 of 2003 Smt. Indubala Agarwal and others vs. Shri Parvesh Seth, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, as well as summoning order dated 10.03.2003. 2- Brief facts of the case are that complainants- respondent no. 2 to 4 filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, alleging therein that accused-petitioner gave to the complainants cheque no.037163 dated 13.7.2002 and cheque no. 041031 dated 23.8.2002 in respect of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively. When the said cheques were submitted before the Bank, the same were dishonoured by the Bank. The accused was given notice, but even after receipt of the same the payment of amount of cheque was not made by the accused. The statement of the complainants under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The learned Magistrate having finding prima facie case against 2 the petitioner summoned him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 10.4.2003. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 3- Heard Sri Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1 and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 4. 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 is to be caused to the petitioner at this stage, in case, if he faces the trial before the trial court. 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. 3 5- The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6- Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim stay order, if any, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP