VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Sections 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners challenged the impugned order dated 20.4.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Hardoi whereby the revisional Court allowed the criminal revision and set -aside the order dated 3.3.2008 accepting the final report by the learned Magistrate and rejecting the protest petition of opposite party no. 2. While allowing the revision the Magistrate was directed to pass a fresh order after considering the existing evidence and documents available on record.
(2.) BRIEF facts for deciding this petition are that opposite party no.2 Jageshwar Singh lodged a First Information Report (for short ''FIR') on 9.8.2006 against the petitioners at case crime no. 269/2006 under section 307 IPC in police station Behata Gokul, District Unnao alleging therein that there was enmity regarding election in between the petitioners and opposite party no. 2. In the election of village Pradhan opposite party no. 2 had participated for one Jitendra Singh, due to which the petitioners threatened to kill him. At about 4.30 p.m. on 9.8.2006, opposite party no. 2 was present in a meeting. Petitioners came there armed with gun (rifle) and started firing with intention to kill him. Opposite party no.2 escaped and entered into the house. On raising alarm, the daughter of opposite party no.2 Km. Madhu Devi alias Kavita came out side the house. The fire hit on her head, due to which she fainted. She was admitted in hospital. Umesh Singh and Jitendra Singh witnessed the alleged incident.
(3.) THE police investigated the matter and submitted final report on 29.8.2006. Opposite party no. 2 filed protest petition. The Magistrate vide its order dated 13.10.2006 rejected the Final report with direction for further investigation. In compliance with the order dated 13.10.2006 the police conducted further investigation of the case and submitted final report once again before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate rejected the same vide its order dated 20.7.2007 and once again ordered for further investigation of the case. In compliance thereof, the police conducted further investigation of the case and submitted final report third time before the Magistrate. The opposite party no. 2 filed protest petition against Final report. After hearing the opposite party no. 2, the learned Magistrate accepted the final report after rejecting the protest petition of opposite party no. 2 vide its order dated 3.3.2008. Aggrieved by the order dated 3.3.3008, the opposite party no. 2 filed criminal revision bearing no. 30 of 2008 before Sessions Judge, Hardoi, who allowed the same vide its order dated 26.5.2009 and set aside the order dated 3.3.2008 with direction to the Magistrate to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties in terms of the direction issued by the revisional court. In pursuance of the order passed by the revisional court, the learned Magistrate treated the protest petition as complaint. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of Jageshwar Singh, opposite party no. 2 under sections 200 Cr.P.C. and also recorded the statement of injured Km. Madhu Devi alias Kavita (P.W.1) Jitendra Kumar Singh, independent witness (P.W. 2) Dr. V.P.Gautam (P.W. 3) and Dr. R.C. Gupta,Radiologist (P.W.4). After considering the evidence collected during inquiry under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioners under sections 307 IPC vide order dated 6.9.2010, against which a criminal revision bearing no. 198 of 2010 was preferred by the petitioners before Sessions Judge, Hardoi. This criminal revision was dismissed vide order dated 6.5.2011 and order dated 6.9.2011 summoning the petitioners was upheld. Against the said orders dated 6.5.2011 and 6.9.2011 a Crl. Misc. Case No. 2417 of 2011 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) was preferred by the petitioners, which was also dismissed without issuing notice to the private opposite party by this court vide order dated 25.5.2011. The order dated 25.5.2011 passed by this Court is extracted below: - "Upon perusal of the record, prima facie, I am of the view that the offence committed by the petitioners cannot be denied, therefore, at this stage no interference is warranted in the proceedings of Case No. 3188 of 2008 pending before the trial court. The petition is dismissed. However, it is provided that if the petitioners appear before the court below within two weeks and move an application for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the courts below expeditiously. For two weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 1061 of 2012 (482 Cr.P.C) without disclosing the fact therein that they have already filed a Crl. Misc. Case No. 2417 of 2011 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) and the same has been dismissed by this court vide order dated 25.5.2011. In Crl. Misc. Case No. 2417 of 2011 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) the order passed by revisional court dated 26.5.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Hardoi in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2008 Jageshwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. as well as order dated 17.3.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate -1, Hardoi issuing non bailable warrant against the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 1286 of 2009 Jageshwar Vs. Chandra Prakash and others were put to challenge. A coordinate bench of this Court allowed Crl. Misc. Case No. 1061 of 2012 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) vide order dated 30.3.2012 without issuing notice to Jageshwar opposite party no. 2, the operative portion of which is extracted below: - "In view of the above, this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 26.5.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Hardoi as well as order dated 17.3.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate -1, Hardoi are hereby quashed It will be open for the complainant Jageshwar Singh to move criminal revision afresh against the order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Hardoi. It is provided that if complainant Jageshwar Singh moves fresh criminal revision, the revisional court shall decide the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners(accused)." ;