Allahabad High Court
Yunus @ Bhabnam vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 February, 2010
Court No. - 49 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34636 of 2009 Petitioner :- Yunus @ Bhabnam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Rajeev Sisodia Respondent Counsel :- Govt Advocate Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.
The present application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of case no. 1700 of 2009 under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Masoori District Ghaziabad pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegation against the applicant is that he had sold the land in question to the opposite party no.2, which land was already sold by the applicant much earlier to someone else. It is also contended that the uncle of the applicant had obtained signature of the applicant on a blank papers when he was minor. It is further contended that the applicant has not executed the earlier sale deed and criminal prosecution of the applicant, at the behest of opposite party no.2 is bad in law. It is next contended that with regard to such transaction, civil suit is pending, therefore, initiation of criminal proceedings is bad in law. It is also contended that the applicant has already been enlarged on bail. It is lastly contended that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions.
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 questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 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 applicant has got a right of discharge under section 239 or 227/228, 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 proceedings is refused.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed off. Order Date :- 2.2.2010 Ashish