PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri A.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. None responds on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 2 to 29.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the impugned order 10.7.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in complaint case No. 900 of 2013 (Bhuwanesh v. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and others) is erroneous, illegal and same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In the complaint of the revisionist Bhuwanesh Kumar the names of all the opposite parties viz. 2 to 29 were mentioned and witnesses C.W.2 Badri Prasad and C.W.3 Lal Singh in their statements recorded under Section 202 Cr. P.C., 1973 have also named all the accused persons.
(3.) Moreover, in the counter affidavit sworn by the deponent Kalyan Singh in paragraph 5 it has been mentioned that Rs. 20,000/- was paid to the complainant as a compensation as a result of compromise between both the parties and extract (photocopy) of general diary dated 16.10.2012 has also been filed in support thereof.;