Ram Autar Singh, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 17.10.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Varanasi in Criminal Revision No. 189 of 1998 Lal Mani Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., whereunder the revision has been allowed and the order dated 20.2.1998 passed by IIIrd Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi has been set aside.
(2.) I have heard Shri V. Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the respondent No. 1 and Shri C.K. Parekh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 on this revision and perused the record. It transpires from the record that respondent No. 2 Lal Mani Singh instituted a complaint case bearing No. 2085 of 1995 Lal Mani Singh v. Virendra Pratap Singh in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi under Sections , , I.P.C. with these allegations that one Radhika Devi was the owner and in possession of land as detailed in the complaint, situated in Chandauli, the then District Varanasi and the revisionists Virendra Pratap Singh and others in collusion with each other got a forged sale deed executed by an imposter and registered at Calcutta (West Bengal) on 7.8.1990. The said sale deed was allegedly executed by another lady, namely, Ilambas Devi impersonating herself to be Radhika Devi, who was identified by a forged advocate, namely, Madan Gopal Srivastava and on inquiry it was found that no such advocate was found practicing in Calcutta (West Bengal) and on the basis of said sale deed the revisionists got their names mutated by Assistant Consolidation Officer, Varanasi on 18.12.1990 in the revenue record in district Varanasi and when the revisionists tried to enter into the possession of the disputed land, the respondent No. 2 came to know of the entire fraud and forgery committed by the revisionists. He moved an application to S.S.P. Varanasi and then instituted the instant complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section Cr.P.C. and statements of the witnesses under Section Cr.P.C. and summoned the revisionists to face trial under Sections , of I.P.C.
(3.) THE revisionists then moved an application before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi alleging the instant complaint to be barred by Section of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate allowed the said application and discharged the revisionists of charges under Sections , , of I.P.C. holding the said complaint to be barred by Section of Cr.P.C.;