Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 30.04.2009, registered as Case No. 1484 of 2009, (State Vs. Salma Siddiqui and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 323 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504 I.P.C., and Section 3(1)X of SC/ST Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Etawah, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Etawah.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that no offence against the petitioners 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. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the present proceedings is nothing but a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the applicants side against the opposite party no.2. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no.1 is a lady, therefore her bail application be considered on the same day by the Court below.
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 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 applicants have got right of discharge under Sections 239, 245(2) or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may 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.
The prayer for quashing the charge sheet is hereby refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant nos.1 & 4 shall be considered by the Court below on the same day if possible, and for remaining applicants their prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However in case the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.6.2010 Hasnain