MOHAMMAD HANIF KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants. Sri Anil Kumar has filed Percha for opposite party No. 2 and submitted that he is ready for argument and he do not want to file any counter-affidavit. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 7.4.2004 and impugned notice dated 3.1.2013 issued under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by Additional Sessions Judge, District Bareilly, in Sessions Trial No. 481 of 2003 under Sections 148 and 307 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the investigation the offence against applicants were not proved therefore, no charge-sheet was filed against them. Subsequently, upon the application of the prosecution which was submitted after recording the evidence of Abdul Majeed, the applicants have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 307 IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that by the perusal of the cite plan, it do not reveal that the applicants were involved in the alleged attempt to murder. It has also been submitted that the medical report is also fabricated as the complainant had not received any injuries.

(3.) Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that the applicants are named in the FIR and specific role has also been assigned to them but the charge-sheet was filed against three persons namely Tasleem and others who had filed criminal revision No. 803 of 2004 which has been decided by this Court by order dated 4.1,2013.