Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

1. The present writ petition along with writ petition no.35 of 2006 (Ram Lakhan Vs. Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others) was dismissed by this Court on 6.4.2012 as none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press the writ petition. Thereafter, a recall application was moved on behalf of the petitioner which was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.4.2012.

2. It appears that one one of the legal heir of the petitioner had filed a SLP before the Apex Court and the matter was remanded back to this Court by the Apex court vide order dated 11.2.2013 to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months.

3. Earlier, the matter was listed before the different Benches of this Court and in pursuance of the judicial order dated 29.7.2013 the matter was nominated to this Bench by Hon'ble the the Chief Justice vide order dated 2.8.2013 and it came up before this Court for the first time on 13.8.2013, but on one count or the other, i.e., sometimes due to lawyers' strike or on the adjournment sought by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter could not be decided and on 17.10.2014 and 14.7.2015 it was again listed before the different Benches. As the roaster changed, the matter came up before this Court on 23.7.2015 and the connected Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.35 of 2006 (Ram Lakhan Vs. Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others) was not printed in the cause list with the present petition, hence it was directed to be listed in the next cause list after fresh nomination from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The same was nominated to this Bench by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 30.7.2015 for deciding the matter along with Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.35 of 2006, hence, the matter came up before this Court after fresh nomination on 7.8.2015, on which date Sri Ashok Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner had sent an illness slip, hence the matter was directed to be listed in the next cause list peremptorily. Both the matters were listed on 14.8.2015 on which date the learned counsel for the parties were heard and further on 20.8.2015 the learned Counsel for the parties filed their written arguments and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the judgment was reserved on 20.8.2015.

4. Since the sole petitioner has died, hence separate orders are being passed by this Court in both the two petitions.

5. Heard Sri Ashok Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Srivastava and Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opp. party no.4 and learned AGA for the State.

6. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned orders dated 4.2.2005 passed by the S.D.M.(Sadar), Kanpur Nagar, under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and also the impugned order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Kanpur Nagar which has been dismissed by the lower revisional Court affirming the order of the S.D.M. (Sadar), Kanpur Nagar.

7. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sole petitioner-Ram Shankar son of Late Asha Prasad has expired on 21.6.2009 and legal heirs of the deceased Ram Shankar filed a substitution application dated 15.3.2010 and a subsequent specific affidavit on 9.11.2013 has been filed by one of the legal heir, namely, Vinod Kumar (son of the deceased petitioner Ram Shankar) informing about the death of his father, i.e., sole petitioner, during the pendency of the writ petition.

8. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.4, namely, Nand Kishore, son of Vidya Sagar has submitted that as the substitution application has been filed by the legal heirs of the deceased on 15.3.2010 in the present writ petition, hence learned counsel for the petitioner be asked whether the legal heirs of the sole petitioner, who had filed the substitution application, are interested i