JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI J.

1. Heard the submissions of Sri H.G.S. Parihar, Senior Advocate assisted by Smt. Meenakshi Singh Parihar and Abhiuday Pratap Singh Advocates, the learned counsel for the applicants in Application under Section 482 Nos. 2718 of 2023, Sri. P.K. Singh Bisen Advocate, the learned Counsel for the applicant in Applications under Section 482 No. 4038 of 2023 and 5595 of 2023 and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, the learned AGA-I for the State, Sri Ravi Shanker Singh, the learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ajmal Khan, the learned counsel for the intervener.

2. The application No. 2718 of 2023 has been filed by (1) Akshay Pratap Singh alias Gopalji, (2) Satyendra Singh, (3) Kailash Nath Ojha, (4) Lalji Nigam, (5) Hitesh Kumar alias Pankaj Singh, (6) Rohit Singh alias Rohit Kumar Singh, (7) Raghvendra Pratap Singh alias Mukur alias Raghvendra Singh, (8) Monu sinsh alias Ashutosh Singh, (9) Yogendra Singh, (10) Sarvesh Singh, (11) Prafulla Kumar Singh alias Dabbu Singh, (12) Zulfeqar Ahmad alias Zulfeqar Ahmad Siddiqui, (13) Shailendra Kumar, (14) VInod Kumar, (15) Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya alias Kunwar Raghuraj Pratap Singh, (16) Ram Kumar alias Banti, (17) Hariom Shankar Srivastava alias Hariom Shankar, (18) Narendra Singh alias Nanhe Singh, (19) Sheetla Singh alias Sheetla Prasad Singh and (20) Dron Kumar Upadhyay alias Dron Upadhyay. Application No. 4038 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant Sudhakar Singh. Application No. 5595 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant Sanjay Pratap Singh alias Guddu Singh.

3. By means of the all the aforesaid three applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have challenged the validity of an order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the Special Judge MP/MLA/ Civil Judge (SD)/FTC-II, District Pratapgarh in Case No. 236 of 2011 (State vs. Raghuraj Pratap Singh and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 513 of 2010, under Sections 395/397/307/364/323/325/504/506/ 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) & Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh, whereby the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the prosecution against the applicants, has been rejected.

4. The points involved in these cases are similar, therefore, these cases are being decided together by a common judgment.

5. The informant-opposite party no. 2 had lodged First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as ‘FIR’) No. 189/2010 on 19.12.2010 against 13 named persons alleging that he was Bahujan Samaj Party’s candidate for Babaganj Block. When he had gone to have dinner with some other political leaders and numerous other party workers to have dinner at a Dhaba (roadside eatery) in Kunda, the accused persons Sudhakar Singh, Pradeep Singh and about a dozen other persons riding two SUVs stopped the vehicles of the complainant and started abusing them. When the complainant and other persons tried to escape, the accused persons fired shots with weapons. The complainant and the persons accompanying him reached in front of Kotwali Kunda but several persons riding two Fortuner SUVs and about a dozen other vehicles started firing shots with weapons towards the informant and his companions. The complainant and the persons accompanying him went inside the Kotwali to save themselves but the accused persons damaged the vehicles of the complainant and assaulted the persons accompanying him with buts of rifles causing fractures to Pushpendra Shukla and Rohit Mishra. The F.I.R. further alleges that some companions of the complainant had been taken away in the vehicles to some unknown destination and their whereabouts could not be known and that some weapons and goods had been snatched away by the accused persons.

6. A charge sheet no. 01 of 2011 was submitted by the police on 03.01.2011 against 11 persons. Thereafter another charge sheet was submitted on 15.03.2011 against 15 persons.

7. On 04.03.2014, the Public Prosecut