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 5.6.2010 passed by Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. IIIrd, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 1576 of 2009 'Smt. Rajpati v. Ajay Trivedi and Ors.', under Sections , , , I.P.C. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the dispute between the applicants and the opposite party No. 2 is with regard to the house. It is contended that the matter is purely of civil nature, which has been dragged into criminal prosecution of the applicants at the behest of the opposite party No. 2, which is bad in law.
(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 applicant. 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 (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and Anr. (Para -10), 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has 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.;