IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 480 of 2004 Satish Jain …Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …Respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners, who are facing the trial in Complaint Case No. 132 of 2004, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/1st Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Dehradun, has prayed for setting aside the orders dated 7.10.2004 and 30.7.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate/1st Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Dehradun, in Complaint Case No. 132/2004, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through its Power of Attorney against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate/1st Civil Judge (J.D.) Dehradun. The learned Magistrate having finding prima facie case against the petitioner taken cognizance and summoned him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 30.7.2004. Against the said order, the petitioner filed the application for recalling of the summoning order and the same was also dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 7.10.2004. 2 Feeling aggrieved by the said impugned orders, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. Heard Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1, Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 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 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. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 3 Accordingly, petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. The stay order dated 28.10.2004 stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 27-03-2010 SP