IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 308 of 2005 Saroj Walia …Applicant/Petitioner Versus State and others …Respondents Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. for the respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant/petitioner for setting aside the order dated 3-7-2004 and proceedings of the criminal case no. 10 of 2004 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora under Section 8 of the U.P. Chalchitra Viniyaman Adhiniyam, 1955. 2- Brief facts of the case are that a challan report/complaint was filed by respondent no. 2 i.e. Entertainment Tax Inspector against the petitioner before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, under Section 8 of the U.P. Chalchitra Viniyaman Adhiniyam 1955 and Rule 18 of the U.P. Cinematographic Rule 1951. The learned Magistrate having finding prima facie against the petitioner summoned her to face the trial under the aforesaid sections, vide order dated 3.7.2004. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 2 3- Heard Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the respondents 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 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. 5- Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 21.05.2005 stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 27-07-2010 SP