VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the proceedings of Case No.317 of 2011 (State Vs. Ayub Khan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.395 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 336, 342, 427, 504, 506, 295 -A IPC, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kunda, Pratapgarh.
(2.) BRIEF facts for deciding this petition are that the opposite party no.2 lodged a first information report in Case Crime No.395 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 336, 504, 342, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh against Ayub Khan, Bablu alias Shabir, Mabood, Kalimuddin, Salim, Mobin, Khalil, Naushad, Nakauddin, Luky, Sagir, Wasim, Mahmood and Laddey and some unknown persons of Village Gayaspur, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh alleging therein that on intervening night of 5/6.12.2011 at about 12:30 a.m., the aforesaid persons along with other made an unlawful assembly with common object armed with Lathi, stick and stones came at the house of opposite party no.2, who belongs to Wahabi sect, and started abusing in filthy language and pelting stones over his house. They bolted the door of the house form outside and threatened him to life. They also destroyed his 4000 bricks kept outside the house. The matter was investigated by the police. During the course of investigation, apart from the named accused persons, 43 other persons were also named by the witnesses. After completing the investigation, charge -sheet has been filed against the petitioners. Learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the petitioners vide order dated 24.02.2011.
(3.) I have heard Mohd. Abid Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and Sri Asim Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that initially 14 persons were named in the first information report but later on 57 persons were also named without any rhyme and reason. It has also been submitted that actually the opposite party no.2 by raising unauthorized wall obstructed the way of procession of Tajiya and against the act of the opposite party no.2, a complaint was made to SDM. The SDM after calling for the report from police directed to remove the wall vide order dated 16.12.2010. It has also been submitted that thereafter, the opposite party no.2 obstructed the way of procession of Tajiya by keeping bricks and when the villagers raised objection, the aforesaid false report has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 implicating most of the villagers. It has also been submitted that the present case is an abuse of the process of the court and is covered by the seventh category of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335.;