ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of the proceeding in Case No.2845 of 2013 (State Versus Awadesh Narayan and others), under Sections 447 , 452 , 323 , 504 , 506 , 325 IPC and 3(1)X SC/AT Act, Police Station- Panvari, District- Mahoba, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba.
(3.) Crux contention floated at the bar by learned counsel for the applicants relates to fact that the entire episode revolves in between two sibling (applicant no.1 and his younger brother) within the periphery of property, which is pending before the Civil Court. The fact is that series of litigation have been and are pending in between them and in order to subvert the situation, he (brother of applicant no.1) has involved his Guard to give colour to such an incident, which, infact never took place. Younger brother of applicant no.1 has only misused the services of his Guard (respondent no.2) for lodging the FIR. He adds that the whole episode speaks of malicious attitude of the respondent no.2 against the applicants, just to serve proprietary interest of his master (younger brother of the applicant no.1). The alleged incident took place on 23.03.2013, whereas on the next day on 24.03.2013 yet the incident continued that too in the presence of the younger brother of the applicant no.1. The entire FIR is indicative of fact that there was no such type of incident, which caused injury to the respondent (opposite party no.2), no such incident ever took place in the presence of a number of persons. He submits that whole incident reflects that respondent no.2 is acting like a tool in the hands of younger brother of applicant no.1. First information report was lodged after elapse of more than a month of the incident and it is quite surprising and crystal clear that FIR lodged against the applicants is outcome of afterthought and in order to colour to the situation. He adds that a frivolous medical examination was undergone into and, that too, on 30th April, 2013. If any injury of fracture was infact caused then some medical evidence in support of the same must have been done prior to 30th April 2013, which aspect is altogether missing. Apart from above, learned counsel for the applicants submits that registered will has been executed by the mother of the applicant no.1, wherein the younger brother of the applicant (the master of the opposite party no.2) has been divested of his right and his son has been bequeathed certain property by way of will (executed by the applicant's mother). Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the ratio of law laid down in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal Law (SC ) 1990 11 35.;