- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This is a revision under Section 397/401, Cr. P. C. against the order dated 27-3-99 passed by the XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad by which he refused to discharge the ap plicants and ordered that the charges for the offence under Sections 307, 302/34, 504 and 506,i. P. C. be framed against them.
(2.) THE facts of this case are little peculiar. THE F. I. R. against the applicants was lodged by one Muzaffar for the murder of his wife on 18-4-98. THE police after investigation of the case submitted char-gesheet against the applicants and they were committed to the Court of Session. Before the Court they applied for dis charge under Section 227, Cr. P. C. on the ground that Muzaffar himself committed murder of his wife and lodged the F. I. R. against the applicants due to enmity. It is contended that the applicants went to lodge the F. I. R. to the police station against Muzaffar and his associates for the murder of his wife. However, the F. I. R. was not recorded and then the applicants moved an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. before the Magistrate for registration of the case. THE case was not registered and the applicants filed a revision in the High Court. THE Hon'ble Court on 11-11-98 ordered that Mohd. Shamim son of applicant Mohd. Yasin may file a complaint in the Court. After that order he filed a complaint in the Court in which Muzaffar and his associates have been summoned. It is further contended that in that case Muzaffar and his as sociates are in jail. THEy have moved an application for bail in the High Court, which is still pending. THE contention of the learned counsel, therefore, is that Muzaffar, Arif and their other associates committed the murder of his wife and therefore, the applicant should have been discharged under Section 227, Cr. P. C. Aggrieved by the refusal to dis charge, the present revision has been filed. I have heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri T. K. Khan for complainant Muzaffar. It is admitted that bail application of Muzaffar and Arif is pending in the High Court in the complaint case filed against them by Mohd. Shamim.
(3.) IT cannot be accepted at this stage that applicants' contention is correct that Muzaffar and his associates have com mitted murder of his wife and falsely impli cated the applicants. This fact can be decided only after evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. However, the facts of this case are little peculiar, though different versions cannot be said to be the cross-versions. In this case admittedly victim is the wife of Muzaffar. The contention of Muzaffar is that the applicants and other accused have committed the murder. As against it the contention of the applicants is that Muzaf far and his associates have committed murder of his wife and falsely implicated the applicants due to enmity. The version of only one of the parties can be correct. In this view of the matter it may be that both the versions may be found incorrect, but it cannot be that versions of both can be correct. The case against Muzaffar and his associates has already been filed and in that case also the Sessions Judge had refused the bail to Muzaffar and Arif. They have approached to this Court for bail.;