IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 223 of 2003 Smt. Noora Rao and others …Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …Respondents Dated: 25-02-2010 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants against the cognizance order dated 12.4.2002 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in Case No. 563 of 2002, State vs. Gulshan Kumar & others, under Section 498A/323/506 I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by respondent no. 2 against the applicants under Section 156(3) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, who passed the order on the said complaint to S.H.O. Kotwali, Dehradun to register the case and investigate the same. The case was registered against the applicants under Section 498A/323/506/34/313 I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. The statement of the witnesses of the complainant was recorded and thereafter the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the cognizance order. The petitioners by way of the present petition have challenged the cognizance order dated 12.4.2002. 2 Heard Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1 and perused the record. 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 act as trial judge. 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 petitioners at this stage, in case, if they face the trial before the trial court. There is nothing on record which may indicate that the court below by taking cognizance against the petitioners has committed any manifest error which may warrant the interference of this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The stay order dated 30.09.2003 stands vacated. It is to be noted that in this case complainant- respondent no. 2 Smt. Poonam is reported to be dead. The trial court in the event of this 3 circumstance that the complainant is now dead, shall decide the case expeditiously without causing any unreasonable delay. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP