MANIRAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for applicants/petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4, which is taken on record and perused the material available on record.

(2.) By means of this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed following reliefs:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are relatives with each other but on the subject of partition of immovable property a dispute arose between the parties. Consequently, the applicants lodged an F.I.R. against the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 vide case crime no. 342 of 2014 under Ss. 147, 148, 308, 323, 324, 506 I.P.C. Simultaneously, as a cross case, an F.I.R. was also lodged by the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 against the applicants as Case Crime No. 342-A of 2014, under Sec. -147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. in both the cases the Investigating Officer had submitted charge sheets.