Naheed Ara Moonis, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicants, leaned A.G.A. and perused the record.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of the case no. 767 of 2010, under Sections 504, 506 and 392 I.P.C. pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) -III, Basti. The opposite party no. 2 had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants and other persons in respect of the incident dated 17.11.2006 on 18.1.2007 that the applicants had taken away the Mahua woods and when the complainant objected they used abusive language and threatened him dire consequences. Upon the direction of the learned court below the first information report was registered and the case was investigated by the police, which was culminated into final report submitted on 25.2.2007. Thereafter protest petition was filed by the opposite party no. 2, which was treated as complaint and the statement of the complainant along with two witnesses, namely, Hridaya Ram and Israil were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively and the court below arrived at the conclusion that prima facie offence is made out against the applicants and as such passed the impugned summoning order dated 23.3.2010.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that no offence is made out against the applicants under Section 392 I.P.C. as the witnesses during the investigation have disowned that any Mahua tree was fallen there. They had only disclosed that there was a tamarind tree, which was in the occupation of Gram Pradhan, Kripa Ram Verma, therefore, the entire allegations made in the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is falsified by the statements of the witnesses and the police had rightly submitted the final report against the applicants.;