VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.'), petitioner no. 1 - Ashok Kumar, petitioner no. 2 - Ram Prakash and petitioner no. 3 - Manoj Kumar have prayed for quashing the order dated 15.11.2006 passed in Case No. 1495 of 2006 summoning the petitioners to face trial under Section 364 I.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate -I, Hardoi (Annexure No. 2 to this petition) and affirming the aforesaid order in Criminal Revision No. 126 of 2010 vide order dated 02.11.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Hardoi (Annexure No. 1 to this petition) and also prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 1495 of 2006 titled as Ganga Ram Vs. Ram Prakash and others, under Section 364 I.P.C., Police Station Madhoganj, District - Hardoi.
(2.) THE brief facts for deciding this petition are that the opposite party no. 2 - Ganga Ram moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 24.02.2004 alleging therein that his elder brother Parmeshwar Deen got him bailed out in June/July, 1994 in Case Crime No. 55 of 1994, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. The petitioner no. 2 - Ram Prakash was the informant and petitioner no. 3 - Manoj Kumar was the injurned in the aforesaid case. The petitioner no. 2 was having enmity with opposite party no. 2 and his family. The petitioners are also resident of Village of opposite party no. 2. After getting the bail in the aforesaid case Parmeshwar Deen was mising. After getting him bailed out, Parmeshwar Deen was seen in the company of the petitioners on a tea stall of Madhoganj at about 6 p.m. where all are taking tea. Parmeshwar Deen was seen in the company of the petitioners by Lala Ram and Mool Chandra resident of Village Purvaya, Police Station Madhoganj, who asked to Parmeshwar Deen to go to his village. Parmeshwar Deen replied them that after short stay, he will go back to village along with petitioners, who were the resident of his village. After that he searched his brother in his relation whereabouts the Parmeshwar Deen was not found. He also moved an appliction of missing his brother to the Officers, who also conducted the inquiry. After several years, the petitioners asked the opposite party no. 2 what he got by moving the applications. He moved the applications to District Magistrate, Hardoi and S.S.P., Hardoi but no action has been taken. He has a belief that petitioners have committed murder of his brother and cause the evidence of commission of murder to disappear.
(3.) ON the basis of this application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the Court directed to register the F.I.R. and to investigate the same vide order dated 24.02.2004. The aforesaid order was also challenged by the petitioners in Revision, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.03.2004. Thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged but the police after investigation submitted final report on 31.03.2004 on the ground that after getting bail by Parmeshwar Deen on 27.06.1994 he was seen in the village, who is a techinical educated person and did diploma from Polytechnice and after that he went to other cities in search of employment. The protest petition has been filed by opposite party no. 2, which was treated as complaint. Statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of opposite party no. 2 was recorded on 16.11.2004 and statements under Section 202 Cr.P.C. of Lala Ram and Mool Chandra were recorded on 17.12.2004. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 15.11.2006, the petitioners were summoned to face trial. The revision has been preferred by the petitioners against that order, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the present petition was filed. I have heard Shri Saurabh Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Arjun Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record of the case. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the incident was of year 1994 but the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was given almost after 10 years. The police investigated the matter and found that the F.I.R. lodged, is false. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the story of the opposite party no. 2 is highly impropable because Premeshwar Deen, who has got him bailed out in a case wherein Ram Prakash was the informant and Manoj Kumar was the injured, therefore, it does not seem probable that after getting him bailed out, the accused will remain in compnay with informant and injured of the same case. It was further submitted that the witnesses Lala Ram and Mool Chandra are the sureties of Parmeshwar Deen. The cognizance has been taken after more than 12 years of the incident on the evidence of two witnesses Ganga Ram and Mool Chandra who gave evidence only last seen. It was further submitted that the village Pradhan has given statement in writing during investigation that Parmeshwar Deen after getting him bailed out in the year 1994, came to the village and started residing again in Lucknow and was seen after three months in the village after getting him bailed out. He usually visit in connection of his employment to Delhi, Ghaziabad, Kanpur etc. He was intermediate and he got his techinical education in Lucknow in Polytechnic. ;