Court No. - 54 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21254 of 2010 Petitioner :- Nageshwar Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Manvendra Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt Advocate Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
The applicant, through the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the
inherent jurisdiction of this court with the prayer that the proceeding of Case No.4201 of 2009,
State Vs. Chhatrapal and other, Crime No.133 of 2009, under Sections 409, 420 IPC, P.S.
Ashothar, District Fatehpur be quashed.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant 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 applicant. 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 applicant has 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.
The criminal miscellaneous application is rejected with a direction that the bail prayer of the
applicant be considered as expeditiously as possible, if possible on the same day after hearing
the Public Prosecutor.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.7.2010
RK