Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
(2.) THE present Code of Criminal Procedure petition has been filed for quashing the charge sheet No. 394 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No. 09 of 2009, under Sections , , , , , , , I.P.C., Police Station Kaasna, District Gautambudh Nagar in view of the acquittal order dated 29.10.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 202 of 2009 and further for quashing the order dated 23.11.2009 whereby bailable warrant has been issued against the applicants in Case No. 14763 of 2008 (State v. Dinesh and Ors.) pending before learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Couort No. IVth, District Gautambudh Nagar. 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.
(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 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.;