- (1.) THE petitioners have preferred the instant petition under Article 226 of the India for seeking following reliefs: - i). a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 18.11.2013 in Crime No.194 of 2013, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Maheshganj, district Pratapgarh. ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent no.1 from arresting the petitioners involved in Crime No.194 of 2013, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Maheshganj, district Pratapgarh. iii) any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners pointed out that an F.I.R. under Sections 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Maheshganj, district Pratapgarh has been registered against petitioners in Case Crime No.194 of 2013 and they have prayed for quashing the F.I.R. by means of the instant writ petition. Learned counsel pointed out that there was a family dispute between the petitioners and complainant -respondent no.3 in regard to Chak Road in the village wherein petitioners' father Shiv Narain Mishra and elder brother Manish Kumar Mishra had an altercation with complainant and his grand son Sanjay Kumar Shukla. The allegations are that on the instigation of Shiv Narain Mishra, co -accused Manish Kumar Mishra opened fire with his country made pistol which hit grand -son of complainant on his left thigh and one pellet injured the complainant's left eye. Copies of injury reports of Sanjay Kumar Shukla and Suresh Dutt Shukla are annexed herewith as Annexure Nos.2 and 3 respectively to the writ petition. The cross F.I.R. was also lodged by Manish Kumar Mishra but since the police did not register a case, he had no option but to seek redressal before the local court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. A copy of the application dated 26.11.2013 is enclosed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that due to cross version interference of the Court is not needed and the petitioners should not be victimized. The petitioners had no option but to seek quashing of the F.I.R. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence, the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State Counsel.;