Disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated upon by the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the accused has the right to file a discharge application under Sections 239 or 227/228 and 245 Cr.P.C.

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30460 of 2021

Applicant :- Hori Lal

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Ayub Khan,Sanjay Agarwal

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and

perused the record.

The applicant through this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has

invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the

entire proceedings of Complaint Case no. 1619 of 2016 (Lalli Devi vs.

Ram Kailash and others), under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120B I.P.C.,

P.S. Mau Ayima, district-Allahabad, pending in the court Special Judicial

Magistrate, Allahabad, as well as N.B.W. dated 18.10.2021 passed by

Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.

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.

Per contra learned A.G.A. has submitted that 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.

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

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 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. The disputed defence of the

accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have

got right of discharge under Sections 239 or 227/228 and 245 Cr.P.C. as

the case may be through a proper application a proper application for the

said purpose raising all the grounds/grievances which have been taken in

this application or which may have been taken. for the said purpose and he

is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before

the Trial Court.

After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material brought on

record, this Court find that there is no justification for quashing the

prosecution of the aforementioned case.

The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

However, it is directed that if the applicant applies for bail, his prayer for

bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the settled

law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Special Leave to Appeal

(Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021.

Order Date :- 7.1.2022

Faridul