Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Anurag Tripathi, Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. On the request of Learned Counsel for the applicants matter was sent to Mediation Centre on 8.10.2010 and the Mediation Centre, vide its report dated 23.8.2011, has reported that no agreement took place between the parties. The report of Mediation Centre is on record.
(2.) THE present application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of case No. 447 of 2010 under Section 498 -A, 494, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act as well as complaint case No. 3708 of 2005 under Section 498 -A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act P.S. Bisunpur District Kushinagar. It is averred in the affidavit that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.
(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 averment made in the affidavit 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 Vs. State of Punjab, : AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal,, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma,, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para -, 2005 10 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have 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 they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial Court.;