Court No. - 18 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 3051 of 2010 Petitioner :- Dinesh Kukmar & Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Santosh Kumar Pandey Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble S.N.H. Zaidi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.
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 proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1118/2010,
Dinesh Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others, under
sections 498-A, 326, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Antooo, District
Pratapgarh, pending inthe Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh
and order dated 22.6.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge in
Criminal Revision No. 161/2010, be quashed.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no
offence is disclosed against the applicants 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
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 applicants have got a
right of discharge under section 239 Cr.P.C., through a proper
application for the said purpose and and they 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.
It is also directed that if the applicants surrender before the trial
court within fifteen days from today and move for bail, the bail
prayer of the applicants 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 :- 4.8.2010
Muk