The applicants have filed this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the Charge sheet and summoning order dated 3/9/09 as well as the proceedings of case No.2424of 2009 (State Vs. Bindu Prakash and others), under Section 2/3 Public Property Damages Act, 1984 , pending in the court of JM II,Jaunpur.
It has further been prayed that the proceedings of the aforesaid case may be stayed during the pendency of this application.
The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the Charge sheet has been submitted without collecting proper evidence and as such is liable to be quashed. It has further been argued that the lower court has summoned the applicants in a routine manner and without applying its mind. It has also been argued that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present charge sheet has been filed with malafide intentions and to harass the applicant.
The learned AGA on the other hand argued that Charge sheet has been filed after proper investigation and after collecting sufficient material making out prima facie case against the applicants.
I have considered over the argument and also perused the papers. A perusal of the material collected by the investigating officer makes it clear that at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants relate to the disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court in an application moved under Section 482 of the code of criminal procedure. At this stage only a prima facie case has to be seen as has been observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the following cases:
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866.
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.)426. State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma,1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 .
In the light of the above said judgments of the apex Court it is clear that the defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover the applicants have a right of discharge under Section 239/227/228 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, by making a proper application for the said purpose containing therein their submissions with regard to their discharge.
The prayer for quashing the charge sheet or the proceedings as mentioned above is hereby rejected.
However, the learned lower court is directed that after the applicants surrender in the court within three weeks from today their bail application shall be disposed of in the light of the judgement passed by 7 judges Bench of this court in Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2005 Cr.L.J. 755 as approved by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2009)4 SCC 437.
DT 3/2/10sm