Court No. - 54 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22785 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ram Sahodar @ Ram Sahai Master Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Sumit Pandey Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record and the
complaint.
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 complaint case no. 11303
of 2009, under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Civil Lines, district Rampur be quashed.
In spite of service of notice on 20.7.2009, the applicant has not been paid the money. The cheque
has been issued by him. Therefore, there is no reason to quash the prosecution of complaint case
no. 11303 of 2009, under Section 138 N.I. Act
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 on the same day after hearing the Public Prosecutor.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.7.2010 (F.H.)