AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the parties.
The present application has been preferred for quashing the order dated 21.08.2014 passed by learned District and Session Judge, Jehanabad in Cr. Rev. No. 44 of 2013 as well as original order dated 21.06.2013 passed by learned J.M. 1st Class in complaint Case No. 886 of 2012, whereby learned District and Sessions Judge, Jehanabad has dismissed aforesaid Cr. Rev., affirming the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate dismissing the complaint case No. 886/12 under section 203 Cr.P.C.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner instituted complaint case alleging therein that she is the only child of her parents and, after the death of her father, namely, Ram Chandra Prasad Gupta, she inherited the properties left by him by way of survivorship. It is further alleged that, after the death of her father, her cousin sisters, namely, Lalmuni Devi (O.P. No. 3) and Heeramani Devi (O.P. No. 5), along with their respective husbands, got the properties of her father mutated in their names. According to the petitioner, the said properties had been acquired by her father through purchase and gift. The petitioner has further alleged that O.P. No. 2 to 5, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and in collusion with the Circle Officer, Arwal, and his officials, fraudulently obtained an order in their favor in Mutation Case No. 1217 of 2012. It is alleged that the signature of the petitioner was forged and that a stranger woman was impersonated as the petitioner, whereafter, on the basis of such fraudulent representation, the Circle Officer, Arwal, passed the order dated 26.01.2012 in favor of the accused persons. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner instituted the aforesaid complaint case alleging commission of offences by the accused persons in connection with the fraudulent mutation of the properties belonging to her father.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner supported his case on oath as a complainant and the allegation of forgery and impersonation were also supported by enquiry witnesses. It is submitted that the impersonation was done in connivance with local circle officer, therefore, he was also implicated through criminal complaint, in issue, as filed by this petitioner, before the learned Magistrate. It is submitted that complaint was dismissed under section 203 of the Cr.P.C., for a simple reason that the dispute was civil in nature and also the Circle Officer was implicated.
It is submitted by learned counsel that against that dismissal order dated 21.06.2013 as passed by learned J.M. 1st Class, Jehanabad, petitioner preferred revision before learned Sessions Judge, which was registered as Cr. Rev. No. 44 of 2013, through which the dismissal order of learned Magistrate was also affirmed and being aggrieved with the said order petitioner preferred present quashing petition.
Learned APP while opposing the present petition submitted that the order of dismissal of learned Magistrate is reasoned and finding no prima-facie case, it was dismissed was taken. It is submitted that apparently the dispute is civil in nature. It is also pointed out that the Revision preferred by the petitioner also dismissed and, therefore, this quashing petition is nothing but amounting to second revision, which is not permissible in law in terms of Section 397(3) of Cr.P.C.
In view of all such aforesaid discussions and as the dismissal order under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. of complaint preferred by petitioner before learned JM 1st Class, Jehanabad, appears duly reasoned which was also not interfered by learned Sessions Judge, accordingly, the present quashing petition stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit.
TCR, if any, be returned to learned trial court alongwith the copy of this judgment.