Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(viii) The statement of the injured-opposite party No.2 also indicates that he was medically examined at District Hospital on 21.01.2020.

(ix) On receipt of notice, protest application was filed. According to the protest application, particularly paragraphs 2 and 4, the injured - opposite party No.2 was assaulted by the applicants on 19.01.2020 at 9.00 A.M. at agricultural field situated at Village - Sarai Mugal, H/o Sipaah Bhatt, Police Station - Kotwali Rudauli, District - Ayodhya.

(x) It is also to be noted that the order of the Magistrate for further investigation dated 16.03.2021 has not been placed on record for the reasons best known to the counsel for the applicants though it ought to have been brought on record.

(xii) The I.O. thereafter again submitted the final report No.B-24A/21, dated 23.11.2021.

(xiii) After the aforesaid final report, protest application dated 29.06.2022 was filed by injured-opposite party No.2, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.8, a perusal of paragraphs 2 and 4 of the protest application dated 29.06.2022 filed by the injured-opposite party No.2 indicates that the opposite party No.2 remained intact with regard to date, time and place of the incident as was indicated by the injured-opposite party No.2 in the F.I.R. according to which the injured-opposite party No.2 was assaulted at about 9.00 A.M. at agricultural field situated at Village - Sarai Mugal, H/o Sipaah Bhatt, Police Station - Kotwali Rudauli, District - Ayodhya.

6. For the purposes of causing interference, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that (i) there is discrepancy with regard to the date of incident as in the complaint/protest application dated 29.06.2022 filed by injured-opposite party No.2 the date of incident is mentioned as 19.01.2020 and according to the statement of the injured- opposite party No.2 recorded before the Magistrate concerned under Section 200 Cr.P.C. the incident occurred on 01.01.2019 and therefore case of the injured-opposite party No.2 is concocted, (ii) the proceedings arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.0080/2020 in issue is abuse of process of law for the reason that the FIR was lodged only to pressurize the family of the applicants in relation to matrimonial dispute between sister of the applicants and son of the injured-opposite party No.2.

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application.

8. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

9. This court is not impressed with the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants. It is for the following reasons :-

(i) The opposite party No.2, who is injured witness, has leveled specific allegations with regard to the date, time and place of the incident, as indicated in the F.I.R./Case Crime No.0080 of 2020, in the statement recorded by I.O. in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. as also before the Magistrate, in the first protest application as also in the second protest application and also that according to injury/medico legal report of injured-opposite party No.2 dated 21.01.2020 the injuries could be sustained by him 48 hours before, which indicates that the incident took place on the date as mentioned in the F.I.R. i.e. 19.01.2020.