Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2315 of 2016 Revisionist :- Akhilesh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Azad Singh,Rajiv Lochan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist. Sri Sateesh Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla submits that he does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit which already on record and which is acknowledged to have been received by his Clerk.
3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist - accused being aggrieved of order dated 12.5.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Jaunpur taking cognizance of offence against applicant under section 419, 420, 504 and 506 IPC in Criminal Case No. 1330 of 2016 on the basis of statements of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his witness PW-1 and PW-2 under section 202 IPC. While taking cognizance court below exonerated applicants from charge under section 467, 468, 470 and 471 IPC and similarly found that no charge is made out against accused Girijeshwar Singh and then summoned accused Akhilesh, Rajnish, Udaibhan and Rajesh Kumar Rai under section 419, 420, 504 and 506 IPC.
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that no offence under section 416 IPC is made out punishable under section 419 and therefore once an offence of forgery is not made out then any offence of cheating can not be said to be made out and on this ground prays for quashing of the summoning order.
5. Counsel for respondents in his turn submits that in Civil Suit No. 1220 of 2013, learned Additional Civil Judge (JD) IIIrd, Jaunpur has taken cognizance of the fact that respondent Akhilesh and Rajnish prepared a forged will of Kashinath and on the basis of said forged will, filed a case for mutation in the court of Tehsil, Sadar, Varanasi. It is submitted that in said matter, learned court has recorded specific finding that signatures of Kashinath on the will in question are different from signatures made by him in his service book and the sale deed. On the basis of such finding, it declared the will to be doubtful and set aside will dated 20.12.2003 allegedly executed by Kashinath. Placing reliance on this order, it is submitted that since will has been declared to be forged and Devnath and his successors are the beneficiary of the said will, therefore, even though in the present no charges have been framed under section 467, 448, 470, 471 IPC but charges can be altered at any point of time and merely not framing of charge at this stage will not exonerate the applicants especially in the light of subsequent judgment of the Civil Court dated 2.1.2021 referred above.
6. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the available record, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order calling for interference at this stage in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Revision fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.9.2021 S.K.S.