- (1.) This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.05.2015, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 271 of 2013 (Ishrat Ali v. Zakir and others), whereby the application for discharge of the revisionists has been rejected.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists; learned A.G.A. representing the State and perused the record.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists have been falsely implicated in this case, in fact no such incident has ever taken place and the F.I.R. lodged against them is a counterblast of Case Crime No. 130 of 2012, under Sections 427, 504, 506, I.P.C., which has been instituted from the side of the revisionists against the opposite party No. 2 and two other persons. It has further been submitted that from the perusal of the entire evidence on record it appears that no offence is made out against the revisionists under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506, I.P.C., therefore, learned counsel has prayed that the impugned order dated 19.05.2015, rejecting the discharge application, which has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record, be set aside.;