- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants in the aforesaid criminal application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. and the said two connected criminal revisions, and the learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.
(2.) The criminal application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. moved on behalf of Smt. Pushpa Devi and Smt. Premwati is being disposed of along with Crl. Revision No. 866 of 1988, moved on behalf of Chunni Lal, Pushpa Devi (again) and Ramesh and Crl. Revision No. 867 of 1988 moved on behalf of Premwati (again) and Satish, Crl. Revision No. 866 of 1988 and connected Crl. Revision No. 867 of 1988 was filed on 7-7- 1988 when further proceedings in ST No. 871 of 1987 pending in the Court of IV, Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh, were directed to remain stayed until 18-8-1988. The impleadment application for impleading complainant was allowed on 18-8-2004. However, in spite of notice, opposite party No. 2 has not put in appearance in this case. It appears that the criminal application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. was filed on behalf of the applicants, Pushpa Devi and Premwati, even though they were the revisionists in two earlier criminal revisions, in order to obviate any controversy about maintainability of the revisions against the orders framing the charge.
(3.) The basic prayer in the application and the criminal revisions was for quashing the charges against the applicants under Sections 302 read with 120-B and 498-A, IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants states that so far as Satish, husband of the deceased Smt. Indu Bala, who is one of the applicants in Criminal Revision No. 867 of 1988, is concerned, he is not pressing the revision on his behalf. Also, so far as the other accused are concerned, he is not objecting to framing of the charges under Section 498-A, IPC, but only prays that no charge under Section 120-B read with Section 302, IPC should be framed.;