of 2020 u/s 302, 201, 506 IPC, P.S. Nanpara, District Bahraich in the alleged incident dated 23.8.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that on account of some personal enmity between the husband of petitioner no. 2 and the complainant the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged. The aforesaid F.I.R. has been lodged pursuant to the application filed u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation the police has filed Final Report against which the protest application has been filed on behalf of informant / complainant. On such protest application the petitioners have been summoned u/s 302, 201 and 506 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that when the statement of the complainant was recorded and the specific question was asked as to why he did not lodge F.I.R. immediately after the incident in question when he was allegedly informed that the petitioners have committed the offence in question, he could not explain the reasons properly (Annexure no. 3). He has also drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of the independent witnesses namely, Jimidar Yadav s/o Chitan Yadav, who has apprised the police that the son of the informant committed suicide and instead of intimating the police the opposite party no. 2 has himself cremated his son and the F.I.R. in question is false and misconceived which has been lodged on account of civil dispute between the parties. More or less same statement has been given by witness Bhailal s/o Jagarnath Arya, Sunil Srivastava s/o Iqbal Srivastava, Barsati s/o Goli and Sabit Ram s/o Brijlal.
