SUMITRA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS. Poonam Srivastava, J. The respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are proposed accused. Counsel for the petitioner made a request for granting permission to delete name of the respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 from array of the party. She is allowed to do so. The instant writ petition is being heard only against the State. Learned A. G. A. was allowed three weeks' time to file counter- affidavit on 9-2-2007 but no counter-affidavit has been filed so far. Since only legal question is to be decided, I proceed to hear the case.

(2.) HEARD Smt. Swati Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A. G. A. for the State.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a subsequent decision of the Apex Court Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Ors. , 2005 (1) JIC 109 (SC) : 2004, Crlj 4219. It is submitted that the version given by the petitioner in her application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. is no doubt regarding the same incident i. e. murder of the daughter and grand- daughter but the accused are different, the allegations are also altogether changed from the version of the F. I. R. lodged by Suresh Chandra Pal. Thus, it is a counter version of the same occurrence. The Counsel states that the first report was only with a view to camouflage the real facts and, therefore, the Magistrate's order is absolutely illegal and based on technicalities.