Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) THE present application has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 24.04.2011 filed in Case No. 599 of 2010, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, PS Kuber Sthan, district Kushi Nagar pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kasyan, district Kushi Nagar. 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 malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions.
(2.) 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 submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, : AIR 1960 SC 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 another (Para -10), 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under section 239, 245(2) or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial Court. The prayer for quashing of the charge sheet dated 24.04.2011 is refused.
(3.) HOWEVER , it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within a period of 30 days from today and applies for bail, then his prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another v. State of U.P.,, 2004 (57) ALR 290 and in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., reported in : 2009 (4) SCC 437, after hearing the Public Prosecutor.;