SURENDRA SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material placed on the record.
(2.) THE present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 24.8.2007 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Sultanpur and further proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 569 of 2007 (Smt. Annapuran v. Santosh Kumar and others), Under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sul­tanpur. 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 mala fide 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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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 Hanyana v. Bhajan Lal, 1991 (28) ACC 111 (SC). State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1991 (Suppl.) ACC 493 (SC) and Lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 (51) ACC 188 (SC) = 2005 (25) AIC 379.
(3.) THE prayer for quashing the pro­ceedings is refused.;