Hon’ble Surendra Kumar, J.—Criminal revision is taken up in the revised list. Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 who are accused persons in the trial Court has not appeared to argue the case.

2. Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist/first informant and learned AGA for the opposite party No. 1.

3. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist-first informant against the order dated 30.3.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Aligarh, in Case No. 732 of 2002 State v. Shanker Singh and others, relating to Case Crime No. Nil of 1997, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 336, 504 IPC Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh whereby the cognizance in the aforesaid Sections was taken finding prima facie evidence against them, fixing 7.5.2010 for appearance of the accused persons. It was further mentioned in the impugned order that the accused persons had neither appeared in the trial Court nor sought any bail.

4. The relevant facts are that on 27.12.1996 around 8:00 a.m., the accused persons namely Shanker Singh, Vikram Singh, Ram Naresh, Nagendra, Ram Autar, Devendra and Narendra ( in all seven) formed unlawful assembly and came at the house of the complainant. At that time, three accused persons Shanker Singh, Vikram Singh and Ram Naresh each armed with Lathi and remaining four accused persons Nagendra, Ram Autar, Devendra and Nagendra each armed with Kattas and guns reached the house of the first informant with a common object to kill Gajendra Singh son of the complainant Virendra Singh. In prosecution of the common intention, they fired with their respective weapons at Gajendra Singh. Gajendra Singh was injured as a result of fire shots made by the accused persons. Thereafter, the accused persons threw brick-bats which hit Rajpal, brother of the first informant. Rajpal also sustained injuries in the said incident. Both the injured persons Gajendra Singh and Rajpal sustained injuries and they were taken for medical examination and treatment to the hospital.

5. The First Information Report was not lodged at Police Station. The police in collusion with the accused persons instead of lodging of the First Information Report of the incident, challened both the injured persons under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. After release of both the injured persons, in the case of apprehension of breach of peace, their medical examination was done at District Hospital Aligarh.

6. It was after the order of the Court made on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the First Information Report was lodged at Police Station on 7.2.1997 at 10:00 a.m. under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307 and 336 IPC, at Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh. The police was bound to register the First Information Report in compliance of the order of the learned Magistrate but no crime number was alloted to the incident which shows hegemony or highhandedness of the police. The Investigating Officer after concluding the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons (who are opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 herein) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 504 IPC on 7.8.1997. Thus, the Investigating Officer found evidence under Section 307 IPC having been made out along with other Sections.

7. It appears that on the basis of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate passed the order of taking cognizance under the same offences in which charge-sheet was submitted and proceeded further. The accused persons challenged the summoning order or the order taking cognizance in this Court through Criminal Misc. Application No. 1834 of 1999 and this Court vide order dated 4.6.1999 disposed of the said application directing the Court below to consider objections of the accused persons and dispose of the same.

8. Thereafter the accused persons filed an application in the shape of objection in the Court of the learned Magistrate on 7.5.1999 stating therein that no offence from allegat