D.R.AZAD, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant , learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. This Criminal Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3659 of 2008 under Sections 498A, 323,504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station Akbarpur District Kanpur Dehat, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence under Sections 498A, 323,504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the applicants. It is further contended that the present prosecution has been instituted against the applicants with malafide intention and only with a view to harass them. Learned counsel for the applicants has pointed out certain documents and statement in support of his contention.
(2.) IN support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants have placed reliance on certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, i.e. in the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma v. Monica, 2010 (68) ACC 246, Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttranchal and another, JT 2008 (1) SC 240. and Neelu Chopra and another v. Bharti, 2009 (84) AIC 232 (SC)=2009 (77) ALR 923=2009 (10) SCC 184. The facts of the present case is totally different from the facts of the cases, referred to above, thus, I am of the view that the aforesaid cases are not applicable in the present case. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. have submitted that from the perusal of the first information report as well as other materials available on record, cognisable offence under Sections 498A, 323,504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is fully made out against the applicants and accordingly, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken the cognizance against the applicants. From the perusal of the material available on record and the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and also looking into the facts and circumstances of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. The submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of facts , which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage, primafacie, commission of offence is to be seen in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Crl.) 426=191 (28) ACC 111 (SC)., State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1991 SCC (Crl.) 1992=1991 (Suppl.) ACC 493 (SC). and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Crl) 283.
(3.) THE disputed defence of the accused , cannot be considered at this stage and these are the matters which the trial court will have to take into consideration at the time of trial. This court is not supposed to sit in judgment over the factual features of the case, because, that will depend, upon what evidence is available in the case. However, applicants have right for 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. With the aforesaid direction, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of finally. Application Disposed Off.;