- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. Heard Sri J. S. Sengor, 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 Advo cate, 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 FIR 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 permis sion of the Court the C. B. C. I. D. had no jurisdiction to further investigate the mat ter. It is father contended that the applica tion was moved by opposite party No. 2 after about three years and is an after thought. 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 op posite party No. 2 under his influence has manipulated the charge sheet against the applicants. That the evidence of alibi of op posite 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 can not be quashed for the reason that cog nizance was taken by the Court on the charge sheet against opposite party No. 2. No inves tigation 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 regard ing his murder the civil police after inves tigation 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 ap plication can not 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 can not 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.;