JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha, J.—Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. By means of this 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicants have prayed for quashing the order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in Complaint Case No. 10235 of 2011 (Smt. Shakeela v. Javed and others) under Sections 452, 302, 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., police station Azimnagar, District Rampur. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.7.2011 Javed applicant No. 1 had lodged an F.I.R. which was registered as Case Crime No. 715 of 2011 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 I.P.C. at police station Azimnagar, District Rampur against Firasat Ali-brother-in-law of Smt. Shakeela opposite party No. 2, Ilyas, Islam, Rehan, Shahadat and Afsar at police station Azimnagar, District Rampur with respect to an incident which had taken place on 12.7.2011 at 12:30 p.m. at village Haraita where a meeting was going on at a fair price shop and large number of villagers were present along with the applicants. In between the meeting, some dispute have arisen and hot talks were exchanged between Firasat Ali and Zameer Ahmad, father of applicant No. 1. Due to the said dispute, Firasat shot fired on the father of applicant No. 1 Zameer Ahmad which hit him on his head resulting in his death. Thereafter fighting broke out between the two factions. In the said fighting, several persons, namely, Nadeem, Shahid and Waseem from the side of the applicants received injuries. 4. Firasat Ali also lodged a cross F.I.R. against the applicants and Zameer Ahmad (deceased) on 12.7.2011 at 10:05 a.m. at the same police station which was registered as Case Crime No. 715-A of 2011 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 302, 504 and 506 I.P.C. with regard to the same incident in which he has stated that the applicants had chased him from the fair price shop after hearing the news of killing of deceased Zameer Ahmed, who was shot by him in which he received injuries and entered into his house and made indiscriminate firing in which his niece Km. Nighat Bi had received injuries and died on the spot. 5. Nighat Bi had received injuries and died on the spot. 5. The investigation of case which was lodged by the applicant No. 1 was carried out by the police and charge-sheet was submitted against Firasat Ali, Shahadat Ali and Afsar under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 302 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 Arms Act in the Court of C.J.M., Rampur on the basis of which the learned Magistrate has taken cognisance of the offence on 17.10.2011 and the committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 6. Similarly, the investigation of the case which was lodged by Firasat Ali was also conducted by the police and it was reported by the police in the investigation that Firasat Ali along with his brother Ilyas and other accused persons in order to create pressure on the applicant No. 1 Javed, who had lodged F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 715 of 2011 against them has lodged the F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 715-A of 2011 against applicant No. 1 and other applicants for the murder of his niece Nikhat Bi. Thus, the Investigating Officer exonerated the applicants from the offence which was registered as Case Crime No. 715-A of 2011 and submitted a charge-sheet against Firasat Ali and Ilyas under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 25 Arms Act. The said case was also committed to the Court of Session and the same was registered as S.T. No. 114 of 2012. The Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Rampur had also framed charges against Firasat Ali under Section 302/34 I.P.C. vide order dated 13.2.2013 relating to the murder of his niece Km. Nighat Bi. 7. It appears that when Smt. Shakeela opposite party No. 2 came to know that her brother-in-law Firasat Ali himself has been made an accused in Case Crime No. 715-A of 2011 which was lodged by him by the police under the influence of the applicants, she lodged the present complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in the Court of C.J.M. Rampur on 31.10.2011 stating that it was the applicants, who had entered into her house and had injured Firasat Ali and when her daughter came in front of them she was done to death by applicant Nos. 1 and 2 Javed and Azim alongwith other applicants. 1 and 2 Javed and Azim alongwith other applicants. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant Smt. Shakeela under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of Firasat Ali, Afsar Ali, Shahadat, Smt. Shahjahan, Dr. Raj Kumar and Dr. Sumit Kumar under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and after having found prima facie case made out against the applicants summoned them to face trial for the offence under Sections 452, 504, 506, 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 I.P.C. vide order dated 22.2.2012. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants preferred Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 8280 of 2012 before this Court which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 2.3.2012. The summoning order dated 22.2.2012 was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Magistrate directing him to proceed further with the enquiry in the matter as contemplated under the Proviso of Sub-section (2) of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and after completing the same pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 9. Thereafter, in pursuance of the order dated 2.3.2012, the learned Magistrate examined all the witnesses of the complainant and summoned the applicants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452 and 506 I.P.C. The applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were further summoned under Sections 452 and 302 I.P.C. also vide order dated 20.12.2012 which is impugned herein. Hence, the present application for quashing of the same. 10. The sole ground which has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants for quashing the impugned order is that the brother-in-law of opposite party No. 2, namely, Firasat Ali, who had lodged cross version of the incident dated 12.7.2011 as Case Crime No. 715-A of 2011 against the applicants himself was found to be an accused along with his brother Ilyas in the murder of the daughter of opposite party No. 2 and the participation of the applicants in the said offence were found to be false during investigation, hence they have been exonerated from the said case. He further submits that the present complaint which has been filed opposite party No. 2, mother of the deceased Km. Nighat Bi with respect to the incident dated 12.7.2011 for summoning of the applicants for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 506 and 302 I.P.C. is liable to be quashed as the same is against the established proposition of law. Nighat Bi with respect to the incident dated 12.7.2011 for summoning of the applicants for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 506 and 302 I.P.C. is liable to be quashed as the same is against the established proposition of law. He argued that the applicants cannot be summoned by the Magistrate on the basis of the present complaint and they can only be summoned in Case No. 715-A of 2011 if evidence is adduced during the course of trial in view of the provisions contained under Section 319 Cr.P.C., hence the present complaint as well as the impugned summoning order is liable to be quashed. He further submits that after investigation of Case Crime No. 715-A of 2011 which was lodged by Firasat Ali, he himself found to be an accused in the said case for which charges have also been framed by the trial Court against him on 13.2.2013. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Zile Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (77) ACC 974 SC, in which it has been held that if an accused, who was involved in a particular case and has not been charge-sheeted by the police the he can only be summoned by the trial Court in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate has no power to issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. against the accused on the basis of complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., hence the impugned summoning order is liable to be quashed. 11. In reply to the contention of learned counsel for the applicants, Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel submits that the F.I.R. which was lodged by brother-in-law of opposite party No. 2 Firasat Ali as Case Crime No. 715-A of 2011 for the murder of niece Km. Nighat Bi, who is the daughter of opposite party No. 2 against the applicants is cross version of the incident dated 12.7.2011 was not investigated by the police in a fair manner and the informant of the case, i.e., Firasat Ali has been nominated as accused alongwith his brother Ilyas in a mala fide manner and the applicants have been exonerated. When the opposite party No. 2, mother of the deceased Km. When the opposite party No. 2, mother of the deceased Km. Nighat Bi came to know about the said fact, she filed the present complaint against the applicants before the Magistrate stating the manner in which the incident had taken place in her house and her daughter was killed by Javed and Azim, i.e., applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and her brother-in-law had received injuries at the hands of applicants and when her brother-in-law Firasat Ali was released on bail in Case Crime No. 715 of 2011 which was lodged by applicant No. 1 for the murder of his father Zameer, the police under the pressure and influence of the applicants made Firasat Ali as accused alongwith his brother Ilyas in Case Crime No. 715-A of 2011 which was lodged by Firasat Ali. Hence she filed the present complaint against the applicants for taking appropriate action in accordance with law against the applicants for the murder of her daughter km. Nighat Bi. The said fact has been mentioned by the complainant in her complaint which she had filed on 31.10.2011 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in which the applicants have been summoned by the Magistrate by the impugned order. 12. He further submitted that Smt. Shakeela opposite party No. 2 being an aggrieved person has every right to file present complaint against the applicants being counter version of the incident dated 12.7.2011 and the same should be tried before the Court of law to ascertain the correct version of the incident for which the applicants have been rightly summoned by the Magistrate on the complaint of opposite party No. 2. In support of his contention, Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi, 2001 LAWS (SC)-12-16. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards para-6 of the said judgment which is quoted hereinbelow : “Learned counsel adopted an alternative contention that once the proceeding initiated under F.I.R. No. 135 ended in a final report, the police had no authority to register a second F.I.R. and number it as F.I.R. 208. Of course the legal position is that there cannot be two F.I.Rs. Against the same accused in respect of the same case. Of course the legal position is that there cannot be two F.I.Rs. Against the same accused in respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different F.I.Rs. and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted by the Court styling it is as F.I.R No. 208 of 1998 need be considered as an information submitted to the Court regarding the new discovery made by the police during investigation that persons not named in the F.I.R. No. 135 are the real culprits. To quash the said proceeding merely on the ground that final report had been laid in F.I.R. No. 135 is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and, if so who have committed it.” 13. Similarly, he has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, 2004 LAWS (SC)-9119, wherein it was held that the counter claim is permissible. It was further pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel Sri V.P. Srivastava that recently, the Apex Court in the case of Surendra Kaushik v. State of U.P., 2013 LAWS (SC) (2) 32, has held that the counter version is not prohibited. On the basis of said proposition of the Apex Court, he submits that the order summoning the applicants by the learned Magistrate is perfectly just and legal and does not call for any interference by this Court and the present application deserves to be dismissed. 14. Learned A.G.A. has adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. 15. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. From a perusal of the record, it is apparent that an F.I.R. was lodged by applicant No. 1 Javed for the murder of his father Zameer Ahmad by Firasat Ali and others as Case Crime No. 715 of 2011. On the other hand cross F.I.R. was also lodged by Firasat Ali against the applicants for the murder of his niece Km. On the other hand cross F.I.R. was also lodged by Firasat Ali against the applicants for the murder of his niece Km. Nighat as Case Crime No. 715-A of 2011 in which the police after investigation had made Firasat Ali and his brother Ilyas accused for the murder of his niece Km. Nighat Bi and exonerated the applicants from the said offences. When the opposite party No. 2 came to know about the said fact, she made a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate giving the manner in which the incident had taken place in her house and her daughter was done to death by the applicants and her brother-in-law Firasat Ali received injuries at the hand of applicants, who have entered into her house while chasing Firasat, who fled away from the place of occurrence where the murder of applicants father was committed. Her daughter was killed by the applicants when she came in the way of applicants while they were chasing and assaulting Firasat Ali with fire arm weapon. She had further made complaint to the higher officers regarding the Station House Officer of concerned police station stating that he has colluded with the applicants and had falsely made her brother-in-law Firasat Ali as accused along with his brother Ilyas for the murder of her daughter Km. Nighat Bi while he was released on bail in Case Crime No. 715 of 2011 and taken illegal custody of her brother-in-law and sent him to jail and has exonerated the applicants. She has filed the present complaint against the applicants on 31.10.2012 for taking action against them in accordance with law. Thereafter the statement of the complainant-opposite party No. 2 and its witnesses was recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate after finding prima facie offence disclosed against the applicants had summoned the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 452 and 302 I.P.C. and further summoned all the applicants under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 452 and 506 I.P.C. by passing the impugned order on 20.12.2012. 1 and 2 under Section 452 and 302 I.P.C. and further summoned all the applicants under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 452 and 506 I.P.C. by passing the impugned order on 20.12.2012. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants that once the applicants have been exonerated during investigation in Case Crime No. 715-A of 2011 and charge-sheet has been submitted against Firasat, who had lodged the said F.I.R. against the applicants, the summoning of the applicants on the basis of present complaint by opposite party No. 2 is not permissible in the eyes of law and the applicants can only be summoned by the trial Court in view of the provisions contained in Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not at all tenable. Moreover, the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Zile Singh (Supra) for quashing of the impugned does not appears to be sustainable in the eyes of law in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the aggrieved person, opposite party No. 2, who is the mother of the deceased Km. Nighat Bi has come forward with a counter version of the same incident which has to be investigated and tried by the trial Court against the applicants in order to ascertain to the correct version of the incident and real culprits, who have committed the murder of Km. Nikhat Bi, hence the present complaint lodged by opposite party No. 2 is being a counter version of the incident on 12.7.2011 is legally permissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Upkar Singh (Supra) as well as in view of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Surendra Kaushik (Supra) where the counter version of the incident has been to be not prohibited. The relevant paragraphs, i.e., paragraph Nos. 13 to 19 and 22 to 24 of the said judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Surendra Kaushik (Supra) are quoted hereinbelow : “13. For apposite appreciation of the issue raised, it is necessitous to refer to certain authorities which would throw significant light under what circumstances entertainment of second FIR is prohibited. In Ram Lal Narang (supra), this Court was dealing with the facts and circumstances of a case where two FIRs were lodged and two charge-sheets were filed. For apposite appreciation of the issue raised, it is necessitous to refer to certain authorities which would throw significant light under what circumstances entertainment of second FIR is prohibited. In Ram Lal Narang (supra), this Court was dealing with the facts and circumstances of a case where two FIRs were lodged and two charge-sheets were filed. The Bench took note of the fact that the conspiracy which was the subject-matter of the second case could not be said to be identical with the conspiracy which was the subject-matter of the first one and further the conspirators were different, although the conspiracy which was the subject-matter of the first case may, perhaps, be said to have turned out to be a part of the conspiracy which was the subject-matter of the second case. After adverting to the various facets, it has been opined that occasions may arise when a second investigation started independently of the first may disclose wide range of offences including those covered by the first investigation. Being of this view, the Court did not find any flaw in the investigation on the basis of the subsequent FIR. 14. In T.T. Antony (supra), it was canvassed on behalf of the accused that the registration of fresh information in respect of the very same incident as an FIR under Section 154 of the Code was not valid and, therefore, all steps taken pursuant thereto including investigation were illegal and liable to be quashed. The Bench, analyzing the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of the Code, came to hold that only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognisable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 of the Code and, therefore, there can be no second FIR and consequently, there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognisable offences. It was further observed that on receipt of information about a cognisable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognisable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Code. 15. It is worth noting that in the said case, the two-Judge Bench explained and distinguished the dictum in Ram Lal Narang (supra) by opining that the Court had indicated that the real question was whether the two conspiracies were in truth and substance the same and held that the conspiracies in the two cases were not identical. It further proceeded to state that the Court did not repel the contention of the appellant regarding the illegality of the second FIR and the investigation based thereon being vitiated, but on facts found that the two FIRs in truth and substance were different since the first was a smaller conspiracy and the second was a larger conspiracy as it turned out eventually. Thereafter, the Bench explained thus : “The 1973 CrPC specifically provides for further investigation after forwarding of report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 CrPC and forwarding of further report or reports to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(8) CrPC. It follows that if the gravamen of the charges in the two FIRs the first and the second is in truth and substance the same, registering the second FIR and making fresh investigation and forwarding report under Section 173 CrPC will be irregular and the Court cannot take cognizance of the same.” 16. In Upkar Singh (supra), a three-Judge Bench was addressing the issue pertaining to the correctness of law laid down in the case of T.T. Antony (supra). The larger Bench took note of the fact that a complaint was lodged by the first respondent therein with Sikhera Police Station in Village Fahimpur Kalan at 10.00 a.m. on 20th May, 1995 making certain allegations against the appellant therein and some other persons. On the basis of the said complaint, the police had registered a crime under Sections 452 and 307 of the IPC. On the basis of the said complaint, the police had registered a crime under Sections 452 and 307 of the IPC. The appellant had lodged a complaint in regard to the very same incident against the respondents therein for having committed offences punishable under Sections 506 and 307 of the IPC as against him and his family members. As the said complaint was not entertained by the concerned police, he, under compelling circumstances, filed a petition under Section 156(3) of the Code before the Judicial Magistrate, who having found a prima facie case, directed the concerned police station to register a crime against the accused persons in the said complaint and to investigate the same and submit a report. On the basis of the said direction, Crime No. 48-A of 1995 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the IPC. Challenging the direction of the Magistrate, a revision was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge who set aside the said direction. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, a Criminal Miscellaneous petition was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the High Court, following its earlier decision in Ram Mohan Garg v. State of U.P., [10], dismissed the revision. While dealing with the issue, this Court referred to paragraph 18 of T.T. Antony (supra) and noted how the same had been understood : “11. This observation of the Supreme Court in the said case of T.T. Antony is understood by the learned counsel for the respondents as the Code prohibiting the filing of a second complaint arising from the same incident. It is on that basis and relying on the said judgment in T.T. Antony case an argument is addressed before us that once an FIR is registered on the complaint of one party a second FIR in the nature of a counter-case is not registrable and no investigation based on the said second complaint could be carried out.” 17. After so observing, the Court held that the judgment in T.T. Antony (supra) really does not lay down such a proposition of law as has been understood by the learned counsel for the respondent therein. After so observing, the Court held that the judgment in T.T. Antony (supra) really does not lay down such a proposition of law as has been understood by the learned counsel for the respondent therein. The Bench referred to the factual score of T.T. Antony (supra) and explained thus : “Having carefully gone through the above judgment, we do not think that this Court in the said cases of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, has precluded an aggrieved person from filing a counter-case as in the present case.” To arrive at such a conclusion, the Bench referred to paragraph 27 of the decision in T.T. Antony (supra) wherein it has been stated that a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognisable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. Thereafter, the three-Judge Bench ruled thus: “In our opinion, this Court in that case only held that any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code. This prohibition noticed by this Court, in our opinion, does not apply to counter-complaint by the accused in the first complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of the said incident.” 18. Be it noted, in the said verdict, reference was made to Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi, [11], wherein it has been opined that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case, but when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried out under both of them by the same investigating agency. Reference was made to the pronouncement in State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, [12] wherein it has been highlighted that the power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code to direct further investigation is clearly an independent power and does not stand in conflict with the power of the State Government as spelt out under Section 3 of the Police Act. 19. It is worth noting that the Court also dealt with the view expressed in Ram Lal Narang (supra) and stated thus : 22. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.), also shows that even in cases where a prior complaint is already registered, a counter-complaint is permissible but it goes further and holds that even in cases where a first complaint is registered and investigation initiated, it is possible to file a further complaint by the same complainant based on the material gathered during the course of investigation. Of course, this larger proposition of law laid down in Ram Lal Narang case is not necessary to be relied on by us in the present case. Suffice it to say that the discussion in Ram Lal Narang case is in the same line as found in the judgments in Kari Choudhary and State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha. However, it must be noticed that in T.T. Antony case, Ram Lal Narang case was noticed but the Court did not express any opinion either way. 22. In Babubhai (supra), this Court, after surveying the earlier decisions, expressed the view that the Court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counterclaim in respect of the same incident, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted. 23. In case the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counterclaim in respect of the same incident, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted. 23. It is worth noting that in the said case, the Court expressed the view that the High Court had correctly reached the conclusion that the second FIR was liable to be quashed as in both the FIRs, the allegations related to the same incident that had occurred at the same place in close proximity of time and, therefore, they were two parts of the same transaction. 24. From the aforesaid decisions, it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter FIR relating to the same or connected cognisable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint. As is further made clear by the three-Judge Bench in Upkar Singh (supra), the prohibition does not cover the allegations made by the accused in the first FIR alleging a different version of the same incident. Thus, rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is permissible.” 17. Thus in the instant case the counter version of the complainant narrated in her complaint, who is an aggrieved person, has to be tried and adjudicated by the trial Court and cannot be prohibited in the light of the above mentioned judgments of the Apex Court. 18. The case of Ziley Singh (Supra) cited by the learned counsel for the applicants is totally distinguishable from the facts of the present case as before the Apex Court in the case of Ziley Singh (Supra) the charge-sheet was submitted against one accused and other two accused were exonerated. 18. The case of Ziley Singh (Supra) cited by the learned counsel for the applicants is totally distinguishable from the facts of the present case as before the Apex Court in the case of Ziley Singh (Supra) the charge-sheet was submitted against one accused and other two accused were exonerated. Thereafter, the complainant of the case had lodged a complaint against Ziley Singh for adding him as an accused in the said case which the Apex Court held was not permissible under the law and the said accused could be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., hence the dictum of law of the said case cannot be made applicable in the present case. 19. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate summoning the applicants does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., hence the prayer for quashing of the same is hereby refused. 20. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ——————