D.R. Azad, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
(2.) THIS Criminal Misc. application under Section Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the case No. 1605 of 2007 (State v. Vijay and Ors.) under Sections , , and I.P.C. and Section of S.C./S.T. Act , Police Station and District Siddharth Nagar and for staying further the proceedings of the aforesaid case, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar during the pendency of the present application before this Court. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that no offence under Sections , , and I.P.C. and Section of S.C./S.T. Act , is made out against the applicants. It is further contended that the present prosecution has been instituted against the applicants with malafide intention and only with a view to harass them. Learned Counsel for the applicants has pointed out certain documents and statement in support of his contention.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the material available on record and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties and also looking into the facts and circumstances of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. The submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of facts , which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section Cr.P.C. At this stage, only prima ­facie, commission of offence is to be seen in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab : A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Crl.) 426 , State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, S.C.C (Crl.) 1992 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and Anr., 2005 S.C.C. (Crl.) 283.;