Court No. - 40 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21784 of 2010 Petitioner :- Pilot Baba Alias Kapil Adwait Alias Lallan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru S.P. Fatehpur And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Shyam Bahadur 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. 1087 of 2009,
Case Crime No. 441 of 2008 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Khaga, District
Fatehpur 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.
The criminal miscellaneous application is rejected with a direction that the bail prayer of the
applicants be considered as expeditiously as possible on the same day after hearing the Public
Prosecutor.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.6.2010
Manoj