IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 954 of 2005 Arvind Kumar Sharma …Applicant/Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …Respondents Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. for respondent no. 1 Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant/petitioner against the cognizance order dated 17.9.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun, in Complaint Case No. 894 of 2005, Smt. Seema Sharma versus Arvind Kumar Sharma and others, under Sections 323, 498A and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Dehradun. 2- Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by respondent no. 2 against the petitioner and others before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Dehradun, under Sections 147, 323, 498A, 506(2) I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements of complainant/respondent no. 2 and other witnesses and passed the cognizance order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid cognizance order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition before this Court. 3- Heard Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for 2 respondent no. 1, Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. 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. The stay order dated 23.12.2005 stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 29-06-2010 SP