Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Heard Sri Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A., for the State. Perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 142 of 2017 (State Vs. Ismail and others) arising out of case crime no. 615 of 2017 under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1)s of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bakhira, District Santkabir Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of this application has submitted with vehemence that from the material brought on the record, no offence is disclosed against the applicants. The present prosecution launched against the applicant is wholly malafide as such, the present proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court. The sole purpose for initiating the criminal proceedings against the applicants is to harass the applicants which is clearly evident from the facts. The allegations made in the FIR are wholly false and fabricated. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants have not been arrested by the police during the course of investigation.

4. It was lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the trial court may be directed to decide the bail application of the applicants as per the law laid down in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. The aforesaid submissions is made on the ground that none of the offences alleged against the applicants are punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years.

5. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out against the applicants. 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 the Apex Court in the following cases:- 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.

6. Accordingly, in view of the above the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 142 of 2017 (State Vs. Ismail and others) pending in the court of Session Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar is refused.

7. However, before proceeding to consider the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicants that a direction be issued to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicants on the same day, it will be useful to first refer to the provisions of Section 15 A (5) of S.C./S.T. Act and Section 41 (1) of Cr.P.C.

8. Section 15 A (5) of S.C./S.T. Act reads as under:-

"(5) A victim or his dependent shall be entitled to be heard at any proceeding under this Act in respect of bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused or any connected proceedings or arguments and file written submission on conviction, acquittal or sentencing."

9. Section 41 (1) Cr.P.C., reads as follows:-

"(a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a cognizable offence;

(b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are satisfied ,namely :-

(i) the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of such complaint , information or suspicion