ALOK VIDYALAYA LALGANJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and pursed the impugned judgment and order dated 06.02.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Raebareli in Criminal Revision No.75/2013, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 18.04.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.13, Raebareli in Complaint Case No.585/2012 has been dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased a plot of land Gata No.164, Village Sudan Kheda, Pargana Khiro, Tehsil Lalganj, District Raebareli on 27.06.2006 from Ramdev by means of a registered sale -deed. After the purchase of the aforesaid plot of land, the petitioner has remained in possession, but after sometime, the opposite parties no. 2 to 3 have started creating hindrances in the peaceful enjoyment of the said plot of land. They also filed a Civil Suit No.481/2006 for the relief of permanent injunction on the basis of forged and fabricated agreement of sale. On inquiry, it was found that the opposite parties no.2 to 4 have forged and fabricated the agreement purported to be executed by Ramdev on 04.04.1995. On coming to the knowledge of the aforesaid forgery, the petitioner firstly sent an application to the Superintendent of Police, Raebareli for registration of a case, but when no action was taken, he filed a complaint before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli and prayer was made that the opposite parties no. 2 to 5 be punished for the offence committed by them under Sections 464, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the petitioner and the statement of other witnesses, but dismissed the complaint on the ground that a civil dispute in respect of the same subject matter was pending and from the statement of the petitioner as well as his witnesses, no prima -facie offence is made out against the opposite parties no. 2 to 5. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his complaint, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Raebareli being Criminal Revision No.75/2013, which too was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 06.02.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Raebareli.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the courts below have failed to consider the fact that from the evidence on record, there was sufficient evidence to prima -facie shown that the opposite parties have committed cognizable offence and as such instead of dismissing the complaint, the learned Magistrate should have summoned the opposite parties to face trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also while disposing of the criminal revision did not consider this aspect of the matter and dismissed the revision merely on the ground that the copy of the sale -deed was not filed before the court. It was also held by the learned revisional court that the sale -deed dated 04.04.1995 is still intact as the same has not yet been cancelled by any competent civil court.