IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 722 of 2005 Swami Sudh Prema Nand and others …Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …Respondents Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. for respondent no. 1 None for respondent no. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants/petitioners for quashing the summoning order dated 01.10.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Case No. 1695 of 2005 Om Vati Bai vs. Swami Sudh Prema Nand and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427,452 I.P.C. as well as for quashing the proceedings of the said case. 2- Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by respondent no. 2 against the petitioners before Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427,452 I.P.C. and on the basis thereof Criminal Case No. 1695 of 2005 was registered against the petitioners. The statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate having finding prima facie case against the petitioners summoned them vide order dated 01.10.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the said summoning order, the petitioners have preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 2 3- Heard Mr. Mohd. Azim, 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. 6- Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Stay order dated 20.10.2005 stands vacated. 29-06-2010 SP (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 3