Bala Krishna Narayana, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 71 of 2007, State v. Sitaram Yadav and others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120B IPC and Section 7/13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. - Chilla, District -Banda pending before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), as well charge sheet dated 24.09.2007.
(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 v. State of Punjab, : A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 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 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.
(3.) THE prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case and the chargesheet is refused.;