HETRAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of parties, the matter is being finally heard and the record perused.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2011 passed by the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 92/2011, whereby, the non -applicants No. 2 to 4/respondents No. 2 to 4 have been discharged from the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120 -B of IPC.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court as well as revisional court have 3 committed error in dismissing the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant as the disputed property which was sold by the respondent No. 2 Vijay Singh to the respondent No. 3 Dilkhan Singh was of the ownership of the petitioner as he succeeded the said property from his father as his legal heirs just because the respondent No. 2 got his name mutated on the basis of fake and forged will alleged to be executed by Bala Bai mother of the petitioner in his favour, he does not acquire any title to the property, therefore, the sale deed executed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 3 is to be treated as fake and forged. Hence, cognizance against the respondents No. 2 & 3 ought to have been taken by the trial court. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting -aside both the orders as stated earlier and the trial court be directed for taking cognizance against the respondents No. 2 & 3 for the offences stated in the complaint.