Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10202 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Namrata Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ramanand Pandey,Pradeep Narayan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 30.1.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Court No.12 Basti and may further be pleased to direct the trial court to decide the Case No.1693 of 2016, State Vs. Harish Chandra and others under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Court No. 12, Basti expetitiously.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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.
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 applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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 under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. 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.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of charge sheet is refused.
However, without going into merits of the case, the application stands disposed of directing the court concerned to expedite the aforesaid case and conclude the same, at the earliest possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, by fixing short dates provided there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Ram Murti