Heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioners and the learned AGA for the State-respondent. .
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the charge sheet filed in case crime no.420 of 2008, under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Moradabad, in Case No.2114 of 2009.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that bare perusal of the first information report would reveal that the transaction either took place at Ghaziabad nor at Meerut and no cause of action arose at District Moradabad and it is thus contended that the Courts at Moradabad has no jurisdiction. It is next contended that the civil proceeding is pending therefore, the criminal prosecution for the same is bad in law.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions. 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 questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the 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, 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 has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be 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 filed in case crime no.420 of 2008, is hereby refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear before the Court below within a period of 30 days from today and apply for bail, then their prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-290 and in the recent decision of the Supreme Court dated 23.3.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2009, Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.. For a period of 30 days from today or till disposal of the bail application whichever is earlier, coercive action shall not be taken against the applicant. 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 disposed of. Order Date :- 18.1.2010 Hasnain