Hon’ble D.R. Azad, J.—The present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to set aside the order dated 30.5.2007 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Court No. 3 Deoria under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in Special Trial No. 26 of 20903 (State v. Paras and others) under Section 3 (i) (v) of S.C./S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Bhatni District Deoria.

2. The case of the prosecution as contained in the first information report is that the applicant is owner of plot Nos. 72,73 and 74 and all the accused-persons named in the first information report including the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 are the owner of plot No. 71, which is adjacent to the plot of the complainant. It is further contained in the first information report that all the accused-persons have forcibly taken the unauthorised possession of the portion of the plot belonging to the applicant, therefore, the application was moved by the applicant-complainant to Pargana Magistrate, Salempur District Deoria and the Pargana Magistrate, Salempur District Deoria passed the order dated 19.1.1993 and directed the Lekhpal concerned to make the survey of the plot and accordingly a survey was conducted by the Lekhpal and the allegation was found correct and it was found by the Lekhpal that the accused persons have forcibly taken the possession over the plot belonging to the complainant by demolishing the part/property of the applicant/complainant and also by constructing the unauthorised construction and as applicant-complainant belongs to schedule caste community, therefore, this illegal act of the accused persons comes within the purview of offence under Section 3(i)(v) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. On the basis of the first information report lodged by the complainant , case Crime No. 68 of 1993 has been registered at police station Bhatni District Deoria under Section 3(i)(v) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. against 15 accused persons including Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5. The police after usual investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against only 11 accused persons named in the first information report and excluded the name of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5.

4. After submission of the charge-sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions being S.T. No. 26 of 2003 in the Court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act Court No. 3, Deoria.

5. In the trial, P.W. 1 complainant was examined in the Court. After completion of examination of the applicant- complainant in the Court , an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant for summoning the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5. That application of the complainant has been rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 30.5.2007.

6. Being aggrieved against the order dated 30.5.2007, the present application is filed before this Hon’ble Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the complainant-applicant, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the materials available on record .

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the Courts below has passed an arbitrary order dated30..5.2007 and rejected the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. without applying judicial mind and has committed the same mistake which has been committed by the investigating officer. It is further argued that in the order dated 30.5.2007, there was no authentic or credible evidence before the learned trial Court to prove the factum of alibi .It is further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 are influential persons and are posted in Government service, therefore, they motivated the police concerned in their favour and the police during investigation on the basis of plea of alibi has excluded the name of Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 in the charge-sheet submitted against other accused persons.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the