Baljor vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. The present 482 Cr. P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 08.10.2009 passed in Criminal Case No. 7933 of 2009 u/s 302 I.P.C., Police Station Chhaprauli, District Baghpat, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant had no knowledge about pendency of the present proceedings, therefore, there is no laches on the part of the applicant in approaching this Court.

Perusal of the order impugned shows that earlier final report was submitted by the police thereafter on the protest petition filed by the opposite party no. 2, the applicant has been summoned.

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 u/s 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. The State of Punjab, , State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and another Shri S.A. Khan, , State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, 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 applicant has got a right of discharge u/s 239 or 227/ 228, or 245 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 summoning order is refused.

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided expeditiously by the Court below. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.