Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shamim Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State. None has put his appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, despite being served.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that prior to filing the impugned complaint, the opposite party no. 2 had filed another complaint in respect of the same offences which are the subject matter of the impugned prosecution of the applicant with slight changes which was based upon the same facts as placed in the impugned complaint, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 468 of 2011 and when he failed to get the applicant's summoned in the aforesaid case, he has filed the impugned complaint concealing the factum of filing of earlier complaint by him against the applicant and the learned Magistrate has by the impugned order summoned the applicant to face trial for the offence under Sections 420/384 and 34 I.P.C. in a mechanical manner.
Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated against the opposite party no. 2 as a counter blast to the criminal case instituted against the applicant under Sections 498A, 306 I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act with the ulterior intention for putting pressure upon him and his family members.
Learned A.G.A. submitted that all the submissions made at the bar relate to the 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 the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge 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 including those which have been canvassed by him before this Court in this application.
The submissions made by learned A.G.A. have force.
Accordingly the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.
However, it is provided that in case the applicant moves an application for discharge along with certified copy of this order before the court concerned, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law at appropriate stage.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.3.2014 Faridul