Bala Krishna Narayana, J. - (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 02.08.2008 and 23.08.2011 passed by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Shahjahanpur passed in Case No. 29 of 2008 (State v Rishi Pal Singh & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2006, under sections 147, 148, 364 -A IPC and 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S. Allahganj, District Shahjahanpur as well as for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in the case.
(2.) 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 a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 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 relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 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 Vs. State of Punjab, : A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 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 -10), 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
(3.) MOREOVER , the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 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.;