Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J. -

This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the order dated 29.11.1996, passed by the learned Magistrate as contained in Annexure-4 and the order dated 21.1.2004, passed by learned revisional court as contained in Annexure-5 and also every proceedings arising out of these orders.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2, although a counter-afffidavit on behalf of respondent No. 2 is available on the record and no rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioners against the same.

Matter was listed for hearing after publication of the notice in the cause list dated 28.8.2010 classified as in the list of cases likely to be In fructuous. Name of the counsel for the respondent No. 2 Sri Awdhesh Kumar is printed in the list, but as earlier said, no one appeared on his behalf.

3. Undisputed facts are that on 11.10.1993 in front of the house of the respondent No. 2 in the morning an occurrence has taken place and both the parties of the case had given different versions that how the occurrence has taken place. As per present case at about 6.30 a.m. when respondent No. 2 was at his house, petitioner No. 1 Chiddu alias Wahid Khan with his companion with an intention to "toot" forcibly entered into his house with deadly weapons and started abusing and threatening and "looted" household articles worth Rs. 2,000 and Jewellry worth Rs. 5,000 and also insulted ladies and children and threatened them. Under their fear, respondent No. 2 left his house to save his life. On raising alarm witnesses from the mohalla came there. It is further said that petitioners have obstructed the respondent No. 2 saying that if F.I.R. is lodged, they will manage to send him in jail. With the said reasons, the respondent No. 2 could not come to lodge the F.I.R. and only on 14.10.1993 he informed the Superintendent of Police, Gonda through telegram, but no F.I.R. was lodged. Application was sent to D.I.G. by registered post repeatedly for lodging the F.I.R. An application was also sent to I.G. and D.G.P. through registered post, but no heed was paid by the police personnel. Only then he moved application under Section 156 sub-clause (3), Cr. P.C. in the court of learned Magistrate, district Gonda. On the same, learned Magistrate passed the order directing the police personnel to register the case and to investigate in the matter. Case was registered at Crime No. 218/1995 under Section 395, I.P.C. and F.I.R. was lodged. Without doing any investigation in the matter and without recording the statement of the witness, final report was submitted by the police of P.S. concerned in the matter. When the same was reached at the Court of Magistrate, respondent No. 2 moved a protest petition with the prayer of re-investigation in the matter, but on the same, a complaint case was registered and after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr. P.C. and his witness under Section 202, Cr. P.C and hearing to the counsel for the complainant and also after going through the record, the learned Magistrate found that prima-facie case is made out and there are sufficient ground to summon the accused-persons and he ordered for summoning the accused-persons vide order dated 29.11.1995 for their trial for the offence under Section 395, I.P.C. A revision against the summoning order was filed in the court of learned Session Judge, but the same was dismissed by the learned Session Judge vide its order dated 21.1.2004 and the summoning order of the accused petitioners for their trial was confirmed. Aggrieved by these two orders, this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed. In this petition also vide order dated 26.10.2004 operation of the summoning order dated 29.11.1996 against the petitioners was stayed by this Court.

4. In cross version it was averred that on 11.10.1993 at a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document