Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State -respondent.
(2.) THE present Petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of of case No. 7591 of 2006 under Section , IPC (Mukul Jain v. Raj Kumar and Ors.) pending before the A.C.J.M., G. B. Nagar. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that no chargesheet has been filed against the applicants under Section IPC. It is further contended that no incident as alleged has taken place and the applicants have been falsely implicated due to village rivalry. It is further contended that the factory is closed down for last fifteen years.
(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 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 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 /, 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.;