DAL SHRINGAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. Heard Sri S. D. N. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri S. P. S. Raghav, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) IN this revision order dated 17th January, 1996 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur, taking cognizance against the revisionists on a charge-sheet submitted by the police has been challenged. The contention is that the cognizance is barred by Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as a forged sale-deed was filed in the mutation proceedings before the Tahsildar. From the other side it is pointed out that the original sale deed was never filed and its photostat copy only was filed in the mutation proceeding. Learned counsel for opposite-party No. 2 further contended that successive attempts right from 1993 had been made by filing writ petitions and petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view not to permit the case of proceed. When attempt to get the first information report quashed failed, unsuccessful attempt was made by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the investigation.

(3.) THE order dated 16th August, 1996 does not show that the learned Magistrate was satisfied that bailable warrant was served and executed still the revisionists did not appear before him. Consequently the order directing issuance of non-bailable warrant on 16th August, 19% does not seem to be justified.