S.C.AGARWAL,J. - (1.) SINCE both the above revisions arise out of a common order passed by the Magistrate, they are being connected and disposed of by a common judgment. Criminal revision no.3865 of 2010 has been filed by the accused Mahendra Singh Bhati and Anil Bhati and criminal revision no.3866 of 2010 has been filed by accused Khem Chandra under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11.8.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Gautam Budh Nagar in criminal case no.438 of 2009 State Vs. Satya Pal and others, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby the revisionists and other co-accused have been summoned to face trial under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava and Sri Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State. No notice is issued to private opposite party in view of the order proposed to be passed today, however, liberty is reserved for private opposite party to apply for variation or modification of this order if he feels so aggrieved.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists submitted that impugned order has been passed by the Magistrate without application of mind and without recording specific finding about prima facie case. The dispute between the parties is of civil nature and criminal proceedings are not maintainable. The complainant Nepal Singh (opposite party no.2) has already filed a civil suit before Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gautam Budh Nagar on the basis of same allegations and criminal proceedings are not maintainable. It was further submitted that the revisionists Mahendra Singh Bhati and Anil Bhati had purchased agriculture land khata no.221, khasra no.1171, area 0.5630 hectares through registered Sale deed on 9.3.2009 from Smt. Khajano -wife of Gugan Singh and revisionist Khem Chandra is the witness of the aforesaid sale deed. The F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party no.2 Nepal Singh alleging therein that he was the owner of the disputed property by virtue of registered deed dated 21.4.1983 executed by his aunt Khajano. It was further submitted that in the revenue records, the name of Smt. Khajano is still continuing and the revisionists Mahendra Singh Bhati and Anil Bhati are bonafide purchasers of the disputed land. The revisionists never met the vendor and the deal was materialized through son of Smt. Khajano. Learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order and submitted that F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party no.2 Nepal Singh in both the revisions against Mahendra Singh Bhati, Anil Bhati, Smt. Khajano, Khem Chandra and Satya Pal with the allegations that his bua (father's sister) Smt. Khajano had executed a registered Will in favour of the complainant and his brother on 21.4.1983. Son of Khajano filed objections, but ultimately the proceedings were decided in favour of complainant and his brother on 19.5.2005 by C.O., Chakbandi. Only amal daramad is pending. In the meantime, Mahendra Singh Bhati and Anil Bhati, by putting an impostor at the Registry Office posing at Khajano, got a forged sale deed executed in their favour and two fraudsters were made witnesses of the sale deed. It was further submitted that Khajano had already died and could not have executed a sale deed in favour of Mahendra Singh Bhati and Anil Bhati.
(3.) POLICE , after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the revisionists. This fact has not been denied by learned counsel for the revisionists that on the date of sale deed in favour of Mahendra Singh Bhati and Anil Bhati, Khajano was dead and she could not have executed any sale deed. Prima facie, sale deed in favour of the revisionists Mahendra Singh Bhati and Anil Bhati is fictitious. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that no criminal offence is made out. Whether the revisionists were bonafide purchasers and witness to the sale deed or were party to the criminal conspiracy to defraud the complainant, has to be decided during trial after recording evidence of the parties. Prima facie cognizable offence appears to have been committed and there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the revisionists. At the time of taking cognizance and passing the summoning order on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by the police, learned Magistrate is not required to give details of the prosecution version.;