Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
(2.) THE present Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 1817A of 2008 (Subodh Kumar Pandey v. Chuttan and Ors., under Sections , , , I.P.C., Police Station Kotwalil, District Shahjahanpur, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Shahjahanpur. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case inasmuch as the deceased sustained gun shot injury in the marriage procession where several persons were firing and suddenly one of the bullet hit by the deceased.
(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 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.;