SURESH CHANDRA JAIPURIA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

(2.) The present 482 Code of Criminal Procedure application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer for quashing the complaint dated 22.9.1987, under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 120-B I.P.C. Case Crime No. 442 of 1987, P.S. Sadar Bazar and the summoning order dated 4.10.1989, under Sections 406, 409, 420 I.P.C. passed by the learned C.J.M. Saharanpur in Criminal Case No. 442 of 1987 and the judgment and order dated 7.9.1990 passed by the learned IV A.S.J. in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1989 and all proceeding pending before the learned C.J.M. Saharanpur The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

(3.) 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 applicant. 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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, 1960 AIR(SC) 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC(Cri) 426 , State of Bihar Vs.P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and Anr. (Para-10), 2005 SCC(Cri) 283 The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228, Code of Criminal Procedure as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.