Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Swetashwa Agrawal, Advocate who has put his appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant was also working in the Jaswant Rai Hospital, Meerut at the time of occurrence. All the witnesses cited in the first information report are those who were working in Jaswant Rai Hospital, Meerut. The case has no merit and the application is liable to be allowed.
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 mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the nature 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 a disputed questions 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 law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
He has further relied on a judgment passed in application under Section 482 No. 27543 of 2011, in which this court disposed of the application. The order passed in Application No. 27543 of 2011 cannot be looked into, neither it can be considered because that court did not look into the amendment as incorporated by the State of U.P. and thus, that order cannot be relied on.
Perusal of the record shows that vide State amendment notification No. 777/VIII 9-4(2)-87, dated 31st July, 1989, published in U.P. Gazette, Extra, Part A, Section (Kha), dated 2nd August, 1989. It has been specified that any offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C. if committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh shall be cognizable and if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, punishment should be for seven years or fine or both. Thus, since section 506 I.P.C is a cognizable offence, the definition of Section 2D Cr.P.C. defining a complaint shall not be applicable in this case. As far as the fact that only the witnesses of hospital have been sighted in the first information report, this matter and all the other disputed defences of the accused cannot be looked into at this stage by this court in the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly the application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.9.2014 sailesh