ANITA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Shiv Gopal Mishra, learned Counsel for O.P. No. 2.

(2.) THIS application has been filed by the applicants Smt. Anita, Luxmi Kant, Hari Charan and Asgar Ali with a prayer to quash the order dated 20.9.2008 passed by learned C.J.M. Jalaun in Complaint Case No. 1811 of 2008 whereby the learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cogni ­zance and summoned the applicants to face the trial for the offence punishable under sections 302,120 -B I.P.C.

(3.) IT is alleged by learned Counsel for the applicants that in respect of the same incident the FIR was lodged by appli ­cant Lakshmi Kant at P.S. Konch in case Crime No. 3 of 2008 under sections 364,302 I.P.C. on 3.1.2008 at 04.20 p.m. against Chottu, Binu, Ram Lala and Neelam Nai. After investigation the charge -sheet has been submitted, the case has been commit ­ted to the Court of Session which is pend ­ing in the Court of learned II Additional Session Judge, Jalaun vide S.T. No. 92 of 2008 which is at the stage of the conclusion but it is surprising that in respect of the same incident the complaint has been filed by O.P. No. 2 with different version in which the set of the accused persons has been changed and the first informant of the FIR has been made the accused. The pres ­ent complaint is based on false and frivo ­lous allegations, it has been lodged due to ulterior motive because the O.P. No. 2 was not having the good relation with her hus ­band Hakim Singh the deceased of this case. The divorce has been taken place between them in the year 2005. The O.P. No. 2 was residing at a distance of about 50 km. from the alleged place of occurrence, she was not eye -witness of the alleged occurrence even on the day of alleged incident he did not come at the place of occur ­rence but subsequently due to ulterior mo ­tive at the instance of some other persons the complaint has been lodged by O.P. No. 2 because the persons facing the trial are notorious persons and to give a different version they have successfully persuaded the O.P. No. 2 to lodge the FIR. The learned C.J.M. concerned has also not considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in a routine manner the cognizance has been taken. The impugned order dated 20.9.2008 is illegal, the same may be set aside.