B.K.Rathi - (1.) -Heard Sri J. S. Sengar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri G. C. Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
(2.) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to stay the proceedings of Case No. 5975 of 1999 pending in the Court of C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar, against petitioners. There is no dispute regarding the facts. The opposite party No. 2 is an Advocate, Dr. Dharmendra Singh was his step-brother, who died in the year 1979. The wife of Dr. Dharmendra Singh also died in the year 1981 regarding which suspicion was that she was murdered by opposite party No. 2. C.B.C.I.D. investigated the case and submitted the final report. Sri Vijay Singh son of Dr. Dharmendra Singh was murdered and an F.I.R. was lodged against the opposite party No. 2 and the police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against the opposite party No. 2 after collecting the evidence. That on 15.2.1995 opposite party No. 2 moved a detailed application in which he alleged that the murder of Vijay Singh has been committed by the applicants. He exercised his influence and the investigation was given to C.B.C.I.D., that C.B.C.I.D. has found that charge-sheet has been filed against the opposite party No. 2 and the Court of C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar, has taken cognizance and Case No. 4502 of 1997 is pending. That in spite of the same, the C.B.C.I.D., continued with the investigation and submitted charge-sheet against the applicants. The contention of the applicants is that charge-sheet was submitted for the murder of son of Dharmendra Singh against the opposite party No. 2 on which the case was registered and cognizance was taken. That, therefore, without the permission of the Court, the C.B.C.I.D. had no jurisdiction to further investigate the matter. It is further contended that the application was moved by opposite party No. 2 after about three years and is an afterthought. That the evidence collected by C.B.C.I.D. is also totally unreliable. It is further contended that the perusal of the evidence recorded by C.B.C.I.D. shows that the witnesses are unreliable. That the opposite party No. 2 under his influence has manipulated the charge-sheet against the applicants. That the evidence of alibi of opposite party No. 2 was collected by C.B.C.I.D. to help him in the trial. It is, therefore, contended that the trial of the applicants in the above case on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the C.B.C.I.D. be stayed till the trial of opposite party No. 2 in Case No. 4502 of 1997 is completed.
(3.) I have considered the arguments. The charge-sheet against the applicants cannot be quashed for the reason that cognizance was taken by the Court on the charge-sheet against opposite party No. 2. No investigation was done against opposite party No. 2 and there is no bar for investigating the matter against other accused against whom the charge-sheet was not submitted in spite of the fact that cognizance of the offence was taken against some accused on the basis of the charge-sheet. The deceased is Vijay Singh regarding his murder the civil police after investigation have submitted charge-sheet against the opposite party No. 2. It is no doubt that opposite party No. 2 filed an application after very long delay on 15.2.1995, but the delay in moving of the application cannot be a sole ground for disbelieving the version. The correctness of the same can be decided after the evidence is recorded. Learned counsel has also contended that the evidence collected by C.B.C.I.D. is not reliable . However, the evidence cannot be scrutinized in these proceedings. It is sufficient to say that it is not a case in which there is no legal evidence against the applicants.;