ABDUL KHALIQ AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIST revised none appears to press this application on behalf of applicants. Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

(2.) ANOTHER Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.08.1993, had issued notices to the opposite party No. 2 and in the meantime stayed the further proceedings of Case No. 570 of 1992 (Akbar Ali v. Hakimulla and Ors.) pending before learned IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Meerut. Counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party No. 2 has been filed after service upon the learned Counsel for the applicant in the year 1993 but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed till date.

(3.) IT has been averred in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. From the perusal of the 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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab : A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and Anr. (Para -10), 2005 SCC 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 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. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.