JUDGMENT

NATARAJAN, J.:- Leave granted.

2. Heard counsel for the parties. The limited question for consideration in these appeals is whether the High Court has erred in quashing the charge framed under S. 302 read with S. 120B, I.P.C. against respondents 1 to 3 by the Sessions Judge in exercise of its powers under S. 482, Cr. P. C.

3. Regarding the murder of one Satish, whose grandfather is the appellant in the first appeal the investigation was made over to the C. I. D., Jaipur from the police authorities of Todabhim on account of ineffective. 122 investigation by the latter. After investigating the case, the C.I.D. laid challan against six persons including respondents 1 to 3 for offences of murder and criminal conspiracy to murder. Respondents 1 and 2, it would appear, were absconding and hence proclamation had to be made against them under S. 82, Cr. P. C. Thereafter respondents 1 and 2 moved the Sessions Judge and the High Court for anticipatory bail but failed.

4. The Sessions Judge framed charges against all the accused persons and in so far as respondents 1 to 3 are concerned, a charge under S. 302 read with S. 120B, I.P.C. was framed. Respondents 1 to 3 moved the High Court un