Bala Krishna Narayana, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Special Case No. 29 of 2011, under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 471 IPC and sections 13(2), 13(1) D.P. Act, Police Station -C.B.I. Dehradun, District -Ghaziabad pending before the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ghaziabad. 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.
(2.) 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. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.
(3.) HOWEVER , it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within two weeks from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another v. State of U.P. reported in, 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in : 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.;