Court No. - 54 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23395 of 2010 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Braham Singh,Sushil Kumar Tewari Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A.
The applicants, through the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the
inherent jurisdiction of this court with the prayer that the proceeding of Case No.3226 of 2010,
State Vs. Vinod Kumar and others arising out of Crime No.682 of 2010, under Sections 498A,
307 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Gajraula, District Jeotiba Phule Nagar, pending in the
court of C.J.M., Jeotiba Phule Nagar be quashed.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants
is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the
purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his
contentions.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it
cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at
the bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court
under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur versus State of Punjab, AIR 1960
SC 866, State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr) 426, State of Bihar versus P.P.
Sharma, 1992 SCC(Cr) 192, and lately Zandu Pharmaceutical Works LTD. versus Mohd.
Saraful Haqe and another (Para 10), 2005 SCC (Cr.)283. The disputed defense of the accused
cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under
Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said
purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the
trial court.
In the event such an application is filed within one month from today, the trial court is directed
to consider and dispose it off within a period of two months from the date of it’s filing.
The prayer for quashing the proceeding is refused.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.7.2010
RK