Bala Krishna Narayana, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record
(2.) THE present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 3612 of 2010 (Mamta v Awadhesh Yadav & another) pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli initiated under sections 498 -A IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Dhanapur, District Chandauli along with his order dated 02.01.12 on which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences. 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.
(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 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 defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. 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.;