RAM PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.

(2.) THE applicant has challenged the proceedings of case No. 171 of 2002, Smt. Khem Kaur v. Ram Prasad, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC pending before Judicial Magistrate Court No. 7, Mathura as well as summoning order dated 9-4-2004 passed in the aforesaid case.

(3.) THE said submission of learned Counsel for the applicant, in so far as accused is concerned does not hold good. Under the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure the accused person has got a rgith of hearing at various stages of trial but at the stage of Section 156 (3) Crpc, under Chapter XII no such opportunity is provided to the accused. THE said section does not contemplate any such right of hearing to the accused. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1990 (2) JIC 997 (SC) : 1992 SCC (Cr) 426 vide paras 29, 30 and 31 thereof and Superintendent of Police, CBI and Ors. v. Tapan Kumar Singh, 2003 (2) JIC 126 (SC), vide para 20 thereof. This aspect has been dealt with in detail in the case of Smt. Masuman v. State of U. P. , 2007 ALJ (1) 221. Further it is for the accused to substantiate, by leading evidence, that the proceedings are tainted with mala fides. His allegation of mala fides cannot be accepted without being tested and verified and therefore, no charge-sheet can be quashed merely because there are allegations of mala fide.