Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
(2.) THE present Code of Criminal Procedure petition has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 25.05.2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 403 of 2010, under Sections , , , I.P.C., and Section / of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Katwali Katra, District Mirzapur. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicants that as per charge sheet, copy of which is annexed as Annexure -1 to the affidavit accompanying the application, Dheeraj Sharma, the applicant No. 4 was also made an accused against whom charge sheet was filed for the alleged incident dated 10.04.2010 as per F.I.R., copy of which is annexed as Annexure -2 to the affidavit accompanying the application and attention of this Court has also been drawn to Annexure -9 which is parcha No. 4 issued by the Investigating Officer stating therein that Dheera Sharma, applicant No. 4 was involved in Case Crime No. 170 of 2010, under Sections / of N.D.P.S. Act and was challaned on 05.04.2010 and was in Naini Jail. It is further contended that as Dheeraj Sharma was in Naini Jail since 05.04.2010, there was no occasion for him to be present at the time of alleged incident dated 10.04.2010, therefore, it is argued that no such incident ever took place and the applicants have been falsely prosecuted. It is next contended that mediation between the parties have failed. It is lastly contended that the applicants No. 1, 2, and 3 are ladies, therefore, their bail application be considered on the same day, if possible.
(3.) 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 v. State of Punjab : A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and Anr. (Para -10), 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge under Section or / or Code of Criminal Procedure 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.;