- (1.) The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the order dated 12.1.2016 (Annexure-2 to the affidavit accompanying the application) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Kanpur Nagar in criminal revision no. 342 of 2015 as well as the order dated 19.7.2014 (Annexure-1 to the affidavit accompanying the application) passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in complaint case no. 11326 of 2012 under Sections 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar. Further prayer has been made to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid orders.
(2.) It appears that the aforesaid complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 making averments that husband of the complainant / opposite party no.2 was a car driver of Raghav Shukla and Shyam Shukla. On 30.5.2011, one Pradeep Dixit was murdered by Raghav Shukla and Shyam Shukla, therefore, the husband of the complainant / opposite party no.2 left job and he was called for by them by adopting various modes / methods to re-join the job. Before one day of the incident, Smt. Saroj Kumar Shukla took him with her. On 19.4.2012 at 5.45 a.m. the applicants committed the murder of the husband of the opposite party no.2 but falsely implicated their rivals Rajendra Prasad Dixit, Ravindra Kumar, Hari Babu Shukla and Sonu Shukla and lodged F.I.R. at P.S. Kalyanpur at crime no. 468 of 2012 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 IPC, whereas the opposite party no.2 or her husband had no enmity with them. The incident was witnessed by Sonu Jadaun. Mool Chandra Dwivedi and Anoop Tripathi have also witnessed Anand Tripathi, Smt. Saroj Kumar Shukla and Smt. Prem Kanti Shukla keeping the dead body of the husband of the opposite party no.2 in the vehicle. The complainant and witnesses supported the complaint version. On being satisfied with the version of the compliant as well as the evidence adduced under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, the Magistrate concerned summoned the applicants to face the trial. Being aggrieved with the said summoning order, the applicants filed aforesaid criminal revision, which was dismissed affirming the summoning order. Hence, the present application.
(3.) Heard Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the entire record.;