Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State -respondent.
(2.) THE present Code of Criminal Procedure petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 9.3.2010, passed by IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, in Criminal Case No. 15/9 Shailesh Chandra v. Nitin and Ors., under Sections , IPC. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that no such incident took place and first information report, which was lodged due to personal enmity in which after investigation, final report was submitted and after 3 and half years of the alleged incident, protest petition was filed. It is thus argued that the summoning order is bad in law.
(3.) THE contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.;