AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 31-08-2026 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kr. Singh No. 1 learned APP and Mr. Ranjan Kr. Dubey learned counsel for O.P. No. 6.
The present quashing petition has been preferred to quash the order dated 22.12.2018 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 231 of 2016 arising out of Complaint Case No. 3083 of 2015 passed by the learned court of Sessions Judge, Siwan, whereby and whereunder the learned Revisional court had erroneously dismissed the aforesaid Revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 07.06.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan dismissing the complaint case no. 3083 of 2015 u/s 203 of Cr.P.C. and also for quashing the order dated 07.06.2016 passed by the learned J.M. 1st Class, Siwan, dismissing wrongly the complaint case no. 3083 of 2015 lodged by the petitioner.
As per prosecution case the petitioner filed a Complaint Case No. 3083 of 2015 for the offences punishable u/s 120 (B), 420, 467, 468, 471, 341, 323 and 504 of I.P.C before the learned C.J.M. Siwan on 23.11.2015 against the Opposite parties no. 2 to 6 in which all the witnesses were produced before the court and they supported the complainant's case during enquiry and complainant also filed some documents before the court below. The learned court has not perused the evidence on the record and the document and dismissed the complaint of petitioner u/s 203 of Cr.P.C. on 07.07.2016.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that all enquiry witnesses and the complainant also on oath stated before the court that opposite party has fraudulently by creating forged document has taken the possession over the land belongs to complainant. It is submitted that despite prima-facie complaint, same was dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate saying that dispute is civil in nature. It is submitted that against said order of dismissal Criminal Revision was preferred but same was also dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Siwan through impugned order.
It is submitted by learned counsel for O.P. No. 6 that aforesaid order is well reasoned and, therefore, entertaining this petition would only amount to second criminal revision which is barred in view of Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C.
No doubt, the quashing petition can be preferred against Criminal Revision, if it appears to the extent as to categorize it “perverse”, in view of legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court available through Kailash Verma Versus Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and Anr. [(2005) 2 SCC 571].
It would be appropriate to reproduce the Paragraph Nos. 5 of impugned order, which read as:-
“5.From perusal of the record, it is clear that on behalf of the revisionist, the time petition was filed on all the dates and lastly, the order sheet was got seen to the learned lawyer, who did not turned up to argue in the case. After perusal of the complaint case no. 3083/016, the complainant Vijay Prasad Tiwari has stated the court on question put by the court that the land has been purchased by the accused nos. 3, 4, 5 and the accused nos. 1 and 2 have sold the land after committing the forgery and according to his statement mentioned in para no. 3, he has stated that the accused are in possession over the land and the enquiry witness no. 1 Guddu Yadav has stated that the accused persons, who are the opposite parties are in possession over the land, but Mithilesh Pandey and Shyama Kunwar have committed forgery in alienating the land through sale-deed. Witness no. 2 Dhrup Yadav has stated in his inquiry evidence that the accused nos. 3, 4 and 5, who are opposite parties in this case have purchased the land from the accused nos. 1 and 2 and they are in possession. P.W. 3 inquiry has also stated that the accused nos. 3, 4 and 5 have stated that he has share in the alleged disputed land and he has sold his share to Dhrup Yadav. The prosecution witness no. 4 in his inquiry evidence stated that he has also share in the alleged disputed land and the accused nos. 3, 4 and 5, who are the opposite party also purchased the land and the land in their possession.”
This Court considering the record and submission convinced enough that reason assigned by Revisional court is well within the legal frame as complainant want to settle his land dispute through criminal complaints which is completely un-occassioned and un-warranted.
Accordingly, having no merit, this Court finds no occasion to interfere with the impugned order as discussed aforesaid.
Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merit.
Let the copy of judgment be communicated to the learned trial court forthwith, with TCR, if any.