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 summoning order dated 27.02.2008 under Sections , , , , IPC passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad in Complaint Case No. 122 of 2008 (Maharaj v. Manjeet Ram and Ors.). It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that the applicants were neither named in the complaint nor in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section Code of Criminal Procedure, but their names have only been taken in the statement of P.W. 2 recorded under Section Code of Criminal Procedure It is thus contended that the applicants were not involved in the commission of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated. Iti s further argued that it is a no injury case.
(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 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.;