RAM BABU AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.11.88 passed in Criminal Revision No.138 of 1987 whereby the Ist Addl. Sessions Judge Etawah allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 7.8.87 which was an order rejecting the protest petition and accepting the final report. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.88 passed in revision, filed this revision.

(2.) The brief facts are that opposite party no.2 Smt. Firangi Devi lodged a report against the petitioners stating therein that 27 days after the death of her husband Singhey, the petitioner accused Raja Ram has executed a fake and fictitious sale deed impersonating himself as Singhey in favour of the petitioner accused Smt. Madhuri Devi; that the petitioners Ram Dutt and Ram Babu Awasthi knowing that Raja Ram was not Singhey identified him as Singhey and that the petitioner Ramesh Chandra the deed writer also colluded with them. The police submitted the final report. Smt. Firangi Devi filed a protest petition but her protest petition was dismissed and the final report was accepted by the Magistrate by order dated 7.8.87. Smt. Firangi Devi, therefore, filed a criminal Revision No. 138 of 1987 which was allowed and the order dated 7.8.87 was set aside in the said criminal revision, hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after the dismissal of the protest petition, the complainant had a right to file the complaint that the order passed by the court below was not worthy of interference, yet the revisional Judge has set aside the order passed by the Magistrate.