A.MATEEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.K.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 as well as Additional Government Advocate.
(2.) BY means of this petition, the peti­tioners have prayed for quashing the en­tire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 3692 of 2001, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 427, 336, 384, 504, and 506,I.P.C. read with Section 7 of the Crimi­nal Law Amendment Act, police station Auras, District Unnao. Learned Counsel for the petition­ers states that the proceeding is vitiated in law since it is initiated with mala fide intention and the investigation has been done by one Babau Upadhyay (respon­dent No. 2), the then Investigating Officei with prejudiced mind and in spite of there being specific orders of transferring the case to the Special Investigation Cell, he continued with the investigation and sub­mitted charge-sheet. Further submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the case has been registered on ac­count of political vendetta and since the Investigating Officer, namely, Babau Upadhyay was hand in gloves with one of the parties as such a complaint was made against him and the case transferred vide order of Deputy Inspector General of Po­lice to the Special Investigation Cell,] Learned Counsel emphatically argued that when the case was transferred to the Special Investigation Cell. Sri Babau Upadhyay, the Investigation Officer again started in vestigation and ultimately submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners.
(3.) OFFICE report dated 4-11 -2004 indi­cates that notice has been served upon respondent No. 2 vide report of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur but none appears on behalf of respondent No. 2.;