- (1.) SRI Ram Sheel Sharma, Advocate who has filed this writ peti tion only on behalf of the Balram son of Sukru alias Lagari Yadav is permitted to correct the memorandum of petition by deleting the word 'and' between the name Sukru and Lagari by putting the expres sion 'alias' between these two, as is already mentioned in the stay application.
(2.) SRI Ram Sheel Sharma then sought for time and is allowed permission to array Smt. Hemlata as petitioner No. 2. She is described in the memorandum of petition as wife of the petitioner No. l. He has also filed separate Vakalatnama on behalf of newly added petitioner No. 2 Smt. Hem lata, said to be the wife of petitioner No. 1 Balram Prasad. Normally, notices should have been issued in this case to the informant who is arrayed as opposite party No. 4 namely, Triloki son of Basanta Yadav but since the main prayer in the instant case relates to the challenge of summoning order dated 19-12-2001 passed by the com mitting Court which appears to have al ready been seized with the matter, the writ petition is to be disposed of after hearing Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional G. A. who represents opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3. This order was repeated on 17-3-2001 but the copy of the order-sheet of C. J. M. , Mahoba filed as Annexure 4 indicates that warrants have been issued on the said date against the petitioner No. 1. As prayed by Sri Ram Sheel Shar ma, Smt. Hemlata has appeared before the Court who has offered to voluntarily state Come facts before the Court. There is no reason to deny the said request particular ly when a learned member of the bar has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of both the petitioner, consequently, her statement has been recorded.
(3.) SIMILARLY, the statement of Balram Prasad has also been recorded as requested by Sri Ram Sheel Sharma, Advocate. From annexures filed in this writ petition, it transpires that a first information report giving rise to case crime No. 101 of 2000 arising out of F. I. R. dated 15-3-2001 under Sections 363,366 Indian Penal Code Police Station Kotwali, Dis trict Mahoba has been registered against the petitioner No. 1 Balram Prasad at the behest of the informant Triloki. It further transpires that the police has charge-sheeted the petitioner No. 1 which went to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba, whose orders is referred to above. Though, there is averment in the petition that the matter has been com mitted to the Court of Sessions, this Court is refraining from making any comments as to the said commitment proceedings or pen dency of the trial before the Sessions Court and no observation in this order shall be interpreted by any of the parties to the litigation for or against the matter which is subjudice before the appropriate Criminal Court in Mahoba, either he be the C. J. M. or he be the concerned Sessions Judge.;