HARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE five revisionists accused, namely, Hari, Buddhi, Ratan, kamal and Narayan Singh have challenged the order dated 5. 2. 2004 passed by Judicial magistrate (1st Class) Chhata in Case no. 77/ix/2004} Jagan v. Buddhi and Others, under Sections 406, 420, 422, IPC, P. S. Chhata, District Mathura relating to Crime no. l59 of 2002.

(2.) THE narration of facts giving rise to the present revision, in bird eyeview, are that an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. was filed by Jagan s/o Mool Chand before judicial Magistrate, Chhata on 23. 1. 2002 with the allegations that applicant Jagan owned a land being plot No. 400/116 and 190 in his village Chhata, District Mathura. In the midst of his plot, there is a pond being pond No. 448, which is not suitable for agriculture purposes, as the same has been entered in Column 15 in the revenue records. The revisionists accused Ratan, Hari and buddhi knowingly sold 6 decimals of land from the said put to Kamal Singh, Panna, narayan Singh s/o Harchandi on 10. 7. 1987. Further allegations were that the purchasers knew it very well that the sellers had no right to sell the land in spite of that they had purchased the said land. It is further alleged that Kamal and Narayan Singh aforesaid had executed another sale deed on 15. 10. 1987 from the said plot. The applicant filed an application before Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 19. 1. 1993 but no action was taken against the accused persons who committed fraud and cheating and, therefore, the applicant prayed through his application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. for getting his FIR registered against the applicants for the aforesaid crime.

(3.) IT seems that the application of the applicant under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. was allowed and the registration of FIR and investigation was directed by the Magistrate. However, after investigation the police submitted final report No. 4/02 on 28. 3. 2002. On the said final report, a protest petition was filed by the informant Jagan, respondent No. 2. On his protest petition, his statement under Section 200, Cr. P. C. was recorded on 22. 3. 2003 and the same day statement of his witness Dhramveer Singh lekhpal was also recorded. Vide order dated 5. 3. 2003 Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, chhata rejected the final report and summoned the accused persons for offences under Sections 406, 420, 422, IPC and fixed 10. 4. 2003 for their appearance.