7. So far as the brief submission on the basis of merit of the case is concerned, Sri Shukla has stated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case inasmuch as while serving as the Station House Officer at Police Station-Furshatganj, District-Raebareli (now the District-Amethi), the petitioner arrested the opposite party No.4 in Case Crime No.101 of 2004, under Sections 379, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 4/10 of G.T.P. Act, Police Station-Furshatganj, District-Raebareli, therefore, the opposite party No.4 having ulterior motives and extraneous design in his mind implicated the petitioner in a false and misconceived case. However, earlier the opposite party No.4 filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the petitioner but when the Magistrate concerned rejected such application, the opposite party No.4 filed a revision before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court allowed the revision by directing the Magistrate to do needful in the application of the opposite party No.4, which was filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.. On such application, the F.I.R. was lodged and on proper investigation the final report was filed. Against the final report filed by the Investigating Officer a protest petition was filed by the opposite party No.4, which was treated as a complaint case. Thereafter, the statements under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. have been recorded and pursuant to those exercise, the impugned summoning order dated 22.12.2006 has been issued against the petitioner, which has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to this petition.
