AMAR SARAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, Shri Lalji Pandey for the com­plainant and learned Additional Govern­ment Advocate representing the State.
(2.) BY means of this application the applicants have prayed for quashing of an order dated 4.4.2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 13, Allahabad in case No. 78 of 2006 (State v. Surya Mani Bhartiya and others) whereby the learned Magistrate after in­vestigation conducted by the third investigating officer has preferred the investiga­tion report of the earlier two investigating officers and issued non-bailable warrants for the appearance of the applicants. In this connection, it may be noted that an application under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as the Code) was filed by opposite party No. 2 on 2.9.2005. The Magistrate called for a report from the po­lice station Meja, Allahabad, which was favourable to the accused. However, in spite of the said report the learned Magis­trate passed an order dated 29.10.2005 di­recting the police to lodge an FIR. The ap­plicants filed a Criminal Revision No. 4805 of 2005 before this Court and an order was passed on 10.11.2005 directing the police not to arrest the applicants till submission of a report under section 173(2) of the Code. On 12.11.2005 the case was regis­tered against the applicants at case crime No. C-55 of 2005, under sections 323, 395, 504 and 506 IPC in which the charge-sheet was submitted against the applicants on 17.12.2005 under sections 307, 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC.
(3.) THEREAFTER , it appears that the sec­ond investigation was conducted on orders of the DIG, which after examining some additional witnesses reached the same conclusion and submitted the charge-sheet dated 17.12.2005. However, it appears that on an application made by the accused the investigation was transferred to a third in­vestigating officer by the Circle Officer, who submitted the third charge-sheet dated 16.2.2006. This charge sheet excluded section 307 IPC and also exonerated the applicants Surya Mani Bhartiya and Chandra Bali. On an objection filed by the complainant-opposite party No. 2, the im­pugned order was passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 4.4.2006, which, as mentioned above, disagreed with the conclusion of the third in­vestigating officer, took cognizance of all the offences as per the first and second charge-sheets under sections 307, 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC and included the names of the applicants Surya Mani Bhartiya and Chandra Bali, whose names had been ex­cluded in the third charge-sheet.;