JUDGMENT :

Sameer Jain, J.

List has been revised. Learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State are present. None present on behalf of opposite party No. 2.

2. Heard Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri M.P.S. Gaur, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1317 of 2007, under Sections 500, 211, 120B IPC pending before learned Judicial Magistrate (II), Saharanpur.

4. Perusal of the record shows that opposite party No. 2 filed a criminal complaint against applicants on 26.3.2007 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Court No. 19, Saharanpur with the allegation that he (opposite party No. 2) and applicant No. 1 were posted as guards in sub-prison Roorki and he (opposite party No. 2) lodged a criminal complaint against applicant No. 1 and his family members under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506, 427, 460 IPC, which was finally decided on 13.8.2004 by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Roorki and applicant No. 1 and other accused persons were found guilty and were convicted under Section 323 IPC, therefore, due to that reason applicant No. 1 was having enmity with opposite party No. 2 and he (applicant No. 1) moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on false allegations against opposite party No. 2 and his family members.

5. On 27.3.2001 a case was registered against him (opposite party No. 2) under Sections 323, 316, 504 IPC at Case Crime No. 58 of 2001 at Police Station Gangnahar Roorki. It is further alleged that opposite party No. 2 was arrested and during investigation he remained in Roorki jail for about 12 days and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against opposite party No. 2 and his wife under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and no charge-sheet was filed under Section 316 IPC. On 24.4.2006, trial Court acquitted opposite party No. 2 and his wife under Sections 504, 506 IPC, but convicted them under Section 323/34 IPC. It is further mentioned in the complaint that opposite party No. 2 challenged the order of the trial Court dated 24.4.2006 before the Court of Sessions in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2006. On 31.7.2006, the appeal filed by opposite party No. 2 was allowed and conviction order dated 24.4.2006 passed by the trial Court was set aside by the Court of Sessions and opposite party No. 2 and his wife Smt. Neelam Dixit were acquitted. It is further mentioned in the impugned complaint that as opposite party No. 2 and his family members were having very good reputation in the society, therefore, due to false case lodged by applicant No. 1, their social image was badly damaged and they were defamed and due to false case lodged by applicant No. 1, the opposite party No. 2 could not be promoted, therefore, applicants may be summoned and convict under Sections 500, 501, 211, 120B IPC.

6. In support of the complaint, opposite party No. 2 examined himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses Ram Charan and Rajendra Singh were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

7. On 5.7.2007, ACJM-I, Saharanpur summoned the applicants under Sections 500, 211, 120B IPC.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants contented that as the trial Court convicted opposite party No. 2 and his wife under Section 323/34 IPC, therefore, it cannot be said that case lodged by applicant No. 1 was a false case, even, if the appellate Court allowed the appeal of opposite party No. 2 and acquitted him of all the charges. Therefore, prima facie no offence under Sections 500, 211, 120B IPC is made out against the applicants and further as per Exception eight to Section 499 IPC no offence under Section 500 IPC is made out against applicants. He further contended that all the applicants are the resident of District Nai Teehri (Uttrakhand), therefore, they reside beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of District Saha