SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. The two applicants Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 15212 of 2006 and Sudesh Bhagat lone applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 15188 of 2006 have prayed for the quashing of complaint case No. 516 of 2005, Kanta Rani v. Rajeev Kumar and Ors. , pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Allahabad for offences under Section 420/114, I. P. C. Police Station Attarsuiya District Allahabad, hence both the above noted Criminal Miscellaneous Applications were clubbed together vide order dated 29-11- 2006 and are being disposed off by this common order.

(2.) BEFORE adverting to the facts of the case and merits of the matter I deem it essential to refer that on an earlier occasion two applicants Rajeev Kumar and Satish Kumar in Criminal Misc. Application No. 15212 of 2006 had filed Criminal Revision No. 449 of 2006 challenging their summoning order dated 28- 10-2005 in the aforesaid case. In the aforesaid Criminal Revision initially they got a stay order on 30-1- 2006. The said order dated 30-1-2006 was got extended on 16-5-2006, 18-7-2006, 25-7-2006, 4-8-2006, 25-9- 2006 and 9-10-2006. The aforesaid revision in the ordinary course was listed before me. After hearing the Counsel for the revisionist in the aforesaid case when the revision was going to be dismissed, learned Counsel in the aforesaid revision Sri Madhur Prasad, prayed for withdrawal of the revision to take recourse in the appropriate forum and, hence got the aforesaid revision dismissed. Similarly Sudesh Bhagat applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 15188 of 2006 had also filed Criminal Revision No. 391 of 2006 in this Court and got a stay order on the same date i. e. 30-1-2006 and got it extended from time to time and ultimately the same Counsel Mr. Madhur Prasad got the aforesaid revision also dismissed to seek relief in the appropriate forum. It was after the dismissal of the aforesaid two revisions that the three applicants in the above noted two Criminal Revisions have filed the present two Criminal Misc. Applications under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing of the proceedings, as mentioned above.

(3.) ON the merits of the matter also the complaint cannot be quashed as the allegations levelled in the complaint are that the applicants by manufacturing of the documents purchased and sold the property which belonged to the complainant's mother, namely, Shrimati Durga Devi. It is specifically averred in the complaint that not only the two step brothers, Kishori Lal and Trilok Chandra illegally sold the property by putting a forged thumb impression of Durga Devi, but in connivance with other socio criminises they also got the names of the purchasers mutated on the basis of such forged documents. ON such facts the complainant must get a fair chance to substantiate the allegations levelled by her and establish the guilt of the offenders.