Court No. - 24
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 104 of 1996 Revisionist :- Indrajit And Another Opposite Party :- Ram Autar And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- R.B.Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Case called out in the revised list. No one is present on behalf of revisionist. Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State is present.
Since, no one is appearing on behalf of revisionist hence, it is being decided on merits in absence of the revisionist.
The order dated 25.9.1996 has been challenged in this revision whereby the accused-revisionist have been summoned to face trial under Sections 465 and 120-B IPC.
In the grounds of revision, it has been mentioned that the opposite party no.1 had prayed for injunction and cancellation of the sale-deed which was executed in favour of the revisionist and the said suit is pending before the Munsif Magistrate, Fatehpur. It is also mentioned in the grounds that since, it was settled law that the Court will not take congnizance in such matters in which the matter is pending before Competent Court. The correctness of the sale-deed has to be adjudged before the Civil Court and hence, the present summoning order needs to be set aside.
I have gone through the impugned order, in which it is mentioned that the opposite party no.1 Ram Aautar had filed a complaint under Sections 419, 420 and 471 IPC stating therein that he had half share in the land situated in village Kukeri and he is a disabled person having no children. Accused nos.1 to 3 have got the sale deed dated 28.11.1993 executed in their favour asking a person to impersonate to be the owner of the said land and accused no.4 and 5 had identified the said person who had impersonated. The said sale deed was registered on 25.2.1994. The said document has been forged as no such sale deed could have been executed. The Trial Court has further recorded that on the basis of the evidence of the complainant and three witnesses who have been examined from his side of complainant, it is prima facie clear that the complainant had half share in the said land, which has been sought to be sold through the said manipulated/ forged sale deed for a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- and it is shown that the entire amount has been obtained prior to the execution of the sale deed. It is further recorded in the impugned order that on the basis of evidence which was adduced from the side of complainant under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., prima facie offence is made out against the five accused persons before the Trial Court which include the accused-revisionist who have been summoned to face trial under Sections 465 and 120-B IPC and, accordingly, the summons were directed to be issued against them, directing the said accused to appear before the Court on 21.12.1994.
At the initial stage, when this revision had been filed, the said impugned order was stayed by this Courts vide order dated 4.11.1996.
In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order requiring this Court to interfere in revisional jurisdiction, hence, this revision is dismissed having no force, Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Neeraj