Bala Krishna Narayana, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 30.09.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Jhansi, whereby the learned Magistrate has summoned the applicants to face trial for the offence, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., in Complaint Case No. 2378 of 2010.
(2.) 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. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that the applicants prosecution is liable to be quashed on the grounds canvassed before this Court. 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.
(3.) THE disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have 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 he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.;