Court No. - 18 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 3090 of 2010 Petitioner :- D.C. Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Sudeep Dwivedi Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble S.N.H. Zaidi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.
Notice to opposite party no.2 is dispensed with.
The applicant, through the present application under section 482
Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court with
the prayer that the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10621 of
2009 (State vs. D.C. Singh) pending in the Court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Hardoi, be quashed.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no
offence is disclosed against the applicant and the present
prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the
purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents 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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar
relate 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 defence of the accused cannot
be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right
of discharge under section 227 Cr.P.C., through a proper
application for the said purpose and he is 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 of the applicant is hereby refused.
It is also directed that if the applicant surrenders before the trial
court within fifteen days from today and moves for bail, the bail
prayer of the applicant shall be considered by the courts below in
the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others reported in 2009 (2) SCC (Cri) page 330.
With the above observation, the petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 6.8.2010
Muk
