- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. By means of this revision under Section 397/401 Cr. P. C. the revisionists have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 02-09-1996 and the Criminal proceedings pending against them in the Court of 3rd Additional Cliief Judicial Magistrate. Etawah in Criminal Case No. 402 of 1995, B. P. Srivastava v. Arif AIL under Sections 147,148, 352,506i. P. C.
(2.) I have heard Sri L. K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the revisionists, Sri V. Singh learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A. G. A. The complaint has been filed by the opposite party No. 2 against the revisionists in which they have been sum moned for offences under Sections 147, 148,352,5061. P. C. and the Case No. 402 of 1995 is pending against them. The request has been made to quash the summoning order as well as the complaint. It is contended that according to the complaint brother of the complainant agreed to purchase a land from revisionist No. 1 for Rs 48,000/- but the revisionist fradulently got the sale-deed executed for Rs. 6,000/- on 21-03-1995. The dispute was going on regarding this matter and notice was also sent by the brother of the com plainant. It is alleged that on 21-09-1995 at 6. 30 p. m. all the revisionist came to the house of the opposite party No. 2 to protest against the notice and hurled abuses and also threatened the com plainant with a knife. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that there was the dispute regarding the sale deed and therefore a false complaint has been filed. That the revisionists are resident of Allahabad and the opposite party No. 2 is the resident of Etawah and is a clerk in the Civil Court at Etawah and taking the advantage of his position the complaint has been filed to harass the revisionists. That there was no occasion for the revisionist to go to Etawah and threaten the complainant. That absolutely no injury was caused.
(3.) AFTER considering the arguments and the facts of the case I am of the view that totally false complaint has been filed by the opposite party No. 2 in order to harass the revisionist and it is gross misuse of the process of the Court to permit the complainant to proceed. Accordingly the revision is allowed and the summoning order and proceedings of the above case are quashed. Revision allowed. .;