JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri S.A. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application has been filed for quashing the proceedings arising out crime No. 148 of 1985, under Sections 399, 402, 307 I.P.C. and also crime nos. 149, 150, 151 of 1985 under Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut pending the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. All the three applicants are accused in crime No. 148 of 1985 and each of them is single accused under Section 25 Arms Act in three case crime nos. 149, 150, 151 of 1985 respectively. Submission on behalf of the applicants is that they have falsely been implicated at the instance of local police. The applicants moved higher authorities Home Ministry State as well as at Central level and also approached the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister, Director of Police Lucknow, I.G. and D.I.G. concerned, Grievance of the applicants is that they have been taken from the Ghat where they had gone to catch fish. On the basis of complaint, prompt action was taken by the higher authorities and C.B. C.I.D. was deputed to investigate the matter. After completion of the investigation, final report was submitted ' by the Investigating Agency as all the witnesses had filed their affidavits in favour of the applicants. Submission on behalf of the applicants is that the Magistrate had taken cognizance under Section 190(1)(c) Cr.P.C. The order of the Magistrate dated 28.4.1986 has been annexed as annexure No.8 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. Counsel for the applicants has emphatically argued that Sri V.P. Tiwari, who was the complainant had no authority to submit protest petition. This is something, which is unknown to the criminal law and the Magistrate acted beyond his jurisdiction, entertaining the protest petition as if there was conflict between two departments of the State. It is noteworthy that this is a case under Section 399, 402, 307, and Section 25 Arms Act and the first informant was V.P. Tiwari, S.I. himself. In the circumstances, it cannot be said at if the Magistrate gave a notice to the complainant before accepting the final report committed any error. There was nothing illegal if protest petition was filed by the complainant and also going through the entire case diary, the learned Magistrate was not in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Agency. Me was well within his right to summon the accused and proceed against them. A counter affidavit has been filed by Ved Vyas Tiwari. The witnesses who had given their affidavits in favour of the accused, had previously filed their affidavits in favour of the prosecution on 18.5.1985 but subsequently they were won over by the accused. It has been stated in paragraph No.8 of the counter affidavit that subsequent affidavits were filed by some witnesses under coercion, the police had also investigated the matter before investigation was entrusted to C.B. C.I.D. A charge sheet was already filed before the investigation was transferred. In the circumstances, if the Magistrate was of the view that it appears to him prima facie an offence has been committed. There is no illegality in summoning the applicants and proceed with the trial.
3. I have gone through the entire record. It transpires that criminal history of the applicants has been detailed in the counter affidavit and assertion on the part of the applicants that they are respectable person, cannot be accepted. Without giving any comments on the merits of the case. I am of the view that there is no illegality in the order of the Magistrate. This application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.