RAVINDRA SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Shiv Gopal Mishra, learned Counsel for O.P. No. 2.
(2.) THIS application has been filed by the applicants Smt. Anita, Luxmi Kant, Hari Charan and Asgar Ali with a prayer to quash the order dated 20.9.2008 passed by learned C.J.M. Jalaun in Complaint Case No. 1811 of 2008 whereby the learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cogni ­zance and summoned the applicants to face the trial for the offence punishable under sections 302,120 -B I.P.C. The facts in brief of this case is that a complaint has been lodged by O.P. No. 2 Smt. Sunita in the Court of learned C.J.M. Jalaun at Orai against the applicants alleging therein that the marriage of O.P. No. 2 was performed with Hakim Singh on 14.6.2003. The husband of O.P. No. 2 pur ­chased a plot having the area of 2700 square feet in town of Konch where one house was constructed and the land for second house was left open thereafter the constructed house was sold by him to the family of one Tika Ram, he also purchased one acre of land in his Village Mansukhpura. The husband of O.P. No. 2 was a simple man, he was attracted in a net of love affairs by his cousin's wife who was not having a good character, she used to live in the house at Konch and developed illicit relation because applicants Lakshmi Kant and Hari Charan the cousin's of hus ­band of O.P. No. 2 wanted to usurp the house and land of the husband of O.P. No. 2. Thereafter the husband of O.P. No. 2 was misguided, the pregnancy of O.P. No. 2 was terminated at the instance of her hus ­band and a pre -planned scheme the father of O.P. No. 2 was called and she was sent in his company on 3.1.2008 after three or four days thereafter she got the information at her parents house that her husband has been killed thereafter she came to Konch and found that Smt. Anita and Lakshmi Kant have taken over the possession of her house. She came to know that a false FIR has been lodged against some persons, on enquiry the O.P. No. 2 found that on 3.1.2008 at about 2.00 p.m. her husband has been killed by the applicants. The state ­ment of O.P. No. 2 has been recorded un ­der section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of witnesses Sambhu Dayal, Manohar Man -gal, Uma Shanker have been recorded un ­der section 202 Cr.P.C. After considering the same the learned C.J.M. Jalaun has taken the cognizance and summoned the applicants to face the trial for the offences punishable under sections 302, 120 -B I.P.C. Being aggrieved from the order dated 20.9.2008 passed by learned C.J.M. Jalaun the present application has been filed by the applicants.
(3.) IT is alleged by learned Counsel for the applicants that in respect of the same incident the FIR was lodged by appli ­cant Lakshmi Kant at P.S. Konch in case Crime No. 3 of 2008 under sections 364,302 I.P.C. on 3.1.2008 at 04.20 p.m. against Chottu, Binu, Ram Lala and Neelam Nai. After investigation the charge -sheet has been submitted, the case has been commit ­ted to the Court of Session which is pend ­ing in the Court of learned II Additional Session Judge, Jalaun vide S.T. No. 92 of 2008 which is at the stage of the conclusion but it is surprising that in respect of the same incident the complaint has been filed by O.P. No. 2 with different version in which the set of the accused persons has been changed and the first informant of the FIR has been made the accused. The pres ­ent complaint is based on false and frivo ­lous allegations, it has been lodged due to ulterior motive because the O.P. No. 2 was not having the good relation with her hus ­band Hakim Singh the deceased of this case. The divorce has been taken place between them in the year 2005. The O.P. No. 2 was residing at a distance of about 50 km. from the alleged place of occurrence, she was not eye -witness of the alleged occurrence even on the day of alleged incident he did not come at the place of occur ­rence but subsequently due to ulterior mo ­tive at the instance of some other persons the complaint has been lodged by O.P. No. 2 because the persons facing the trial are notorious persons and to give a different version they have successfully persuaded the O.P. No. 2 to lodge the FIR. The learned C.J.M. concerned has also not considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in a routine manner the cognizance has been taken. The impugned order dated 20.9.2008 is illegal, the same may be set aside.;