JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.

1. By way of this application under Section 482 CrPC, the applicants have prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.08.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Pratapgarh in Criminal Revision No.192 of 2016 (Visharjan Singh Yadav and others Vs. State of U.P. and others).

By means of the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision filed by the applicants against the order dated 12.01.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh in Case No.732 of 2014 (Vidhyabhan Singh Vs. Visharjan Singh Yadav and others) and Case No.761 of 2014 (Indirakar Misra Vs. Visharjan Singh Yadav and others) whereby the applicants were summoned to face trial under Sections 323, 325, 379, 427, 452 and 506 IPC.

Further prayer has been made for quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No.732 of 2014 (Vidhyabhan Singh Vs. Visharjan Singh Yadav and others) and Case No.761 of 2014 (Indirakar Misra Vs. Visharjan Singh Yadav and others), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh.

2. On the date of incident i.e. 21.05.2014 all the applicants were posted in the District Police Pratapgarh. Applicant no. 1 was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh, applicant no. 2 was posted as Chowki In-charge at Police Station Kotwali City, applicant no. 3 was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police, District Pratapgarh, while applicant no. 4 was posted as Circle Officer, City, District Pratapgarh.

3. District Court, Pratapgarh comes within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh.

4. On 21.05.2014, the police received an information through Dial100 of Police Service that a conflict between advocates of the District Court, Pratapgarh and Pradeshik Armed Constabulary (for short 'PAC') personnel, deployed in the premises of Civil Courts, Pratapgarh, was taking place. Information was also given that a PAC personnel had fired upon one lawyer, who had sustained firearm injuries. Soon after receiving the information, to maintain peace and to prevent any further untoward incident, the applicants and many other police personnel rushed towards the Civil Courts compound Pratapgarh to control the situation and maintain peace. The advocates, present in the Courts compound, were highly agitated and, it appears that in the skirmishes, between the police personnel and the advocates, the applicants suffered injuries. The police also used mild force to control the situation and, it took almost entire day for the District Administration to control the situation and bring normalcy in the District Courts compound and city of Pratapgarh.

5. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed two complaints before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 24.05.2014 against the applicants and 8-10 other police personnel, alleging therein that on 21.05.2014 the police personnel, named in the complaints, assaulted and abused the advocates. The advocates suffered injuries. The police personnel also damaged property of the advocates and snatched their mobile-phones etc.

6. After recording statement of the complainants under Section 200 CrPC and witness under Section 202 CrPC, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh vide order dated 15.07.2014 directed merging of both the complaints.

7. After merging of the two complaints, statement of Mr. Ramchandra Yadav was recorded under Section 202 CrPC on 04.08.2015 and statement of Mr. Anil Yadav was recorded under Section 202 CrPC on 30.08.2014. Learned Magistrate thereafter passed order, summoning the applicants vide order dated 12.01.2015 under Sections 323, 325, 379, 427, 452, 504 and 506 IPC.

8. Heard Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, as well as learned Additional Government Advocate, representing respondent no. 1-State.

9. On behalf of the applicants, it has been submitted that