AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.
The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with the prayer to set aside the cognizance order dated 31.07.2024 as well as for quashing of charge sheet dated 12.06.2024 including the entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 2177 of 2024 (State Vs. Kaleem and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 133 of 2024, under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 3/5/ of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station New Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Muzaffar Nagar.
The contention of learned 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 purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves adjudication of a factual dispute and appraisal of evidence.
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 at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 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.
This Court in exercise of its power under Section 528 BNSS is not required to assess the correctness of the allegations and reliability of evidence. Thus, the prayer for quashing is refused.
The present application lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Dismissed accordingly.