Ranjana Pandya, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 06.09.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate -I, Bareilly summoning the revisionists in Complaint Case No. 66 of 2013, Police Station Bhamora, District Bareilly, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and order dated 02.05.2014 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Bareilly, in Criminal Revision No. 318 of 2013. I have heard, the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record.
(2.) PERUSAL of the evidence on record shows that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the opposite party No. 2 with the allegations that opposite party No. 2 used to sell biscuits to run his family: Sabdar Husain, Shamshul Hasan, Irfan and Gulfam had fight among themselves which was calmed down by the opposite party No. 2 due to which the accused persons have enmical relation with the opposite party No. 2. On 27.05.2012 at about 09:00 p.m. when the opposite party No. 2 was returning home after selling biscuits, suddenly Sabdar Husain, Shamshul Hasan, Irfan and Gulfam were sitting near the majar. They stopped the opposite party No. 2 and started abusing and assaulting him. The opposite party No. 2 shouted for help, suddenly Sabdar Husain with intention to kill opposite party No. 2 fired by his country made pistol which hit the opposite party No. 2 on the left palm and wrist. Opposite party No. 2 fell down and the accused persons thinking that the opposite party No. 2 to be dead, fled away. Witnesses Ikrar, Kalloo and other people came from the village who saw the occurrence and saved the opposite party No. 2. In the night, opposite party No. 2 went to the police station from where he was sent for medical examination along with the Home guard. The original papers relating to the medical examination were kept by the police which were not returned to the opposite party No. 2 and signatures were taken on a blank papers from the opposite party No. 2. When nothing was done in the matter, the opposite party No. 2 had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police submitted its final report after investigation against which a protest petition was submitted by the opposite party No. 2 which was treated to be a complaint. The complainant examined himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of PW -1 Kalloo, PW -2 Ikras, PW -3 Azad, PW -4 Kalakter and PW -5 Dr. Kamal Kumar were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
(3.) THE learned lower court after examining all the evidences on record summoned the accused person under Sections 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C.;