S.C.AGARWAL, J. - (1.) SRI S.K. Mishra, learned counsel has filed memo of appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2, which is taken on record. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 7.7.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in criminal revision No. Nil of 2010 Ram Yash v. State, and order dated 10.6.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate-I, Jaunpur in criminal case No. 4280 of 2009 State v. Ram Yash and others, and to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to quash the entire proceeding of case crime No. C-498/07 under sections 218, 120-B, 465, 467 I.P.C., P.S. Machlishahar, District Jaunpur pending the court of C.J.M., Jaunpur. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record.
(2.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No. 2 moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the petitioners, which was allowed and case was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Charge-sheet was challenged by the petitioners by means of criminal misc. writ petition No. 9978 of 2008, which was disposed of by judgment dated 2.5.2008 with a direction to the petitioners to move a discharge application before the court concerned through counsel and till disposal of discharge application, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners. The application for discharge moved by the petitioners was dismissed by the Magistrate. The revision filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge. Both these orders are under challenge in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No. 2 claims to have purchased the disputed land from Km. Babita (minor) through her mother Smt. Sarita in year 2007 whereas, the original owner Lallai had executed a Will in favour of the petitioners. It was contended that the matter is of civil nature and no cognizable offence is made out. Admittedly, Lallai was the owner of the property in dispute and Km. Babita is his daughter. As per the F.I.R., the Will was forged by the petitioners, who, on the basis of forged Will, got their names recorded in the revenue records, but later on the mutation order was set-aside. There are serious allegations against the petitioners for forgery of Will and revenue records. The correctness of the allegations can only be judged after evidence during trial. I have gone through the order passed by the Magistrate rejecting the application for discharge and also the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the revision. This Court cannot enter into the facts and no finding of fact can be recorded in the writ petition. The orders passed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge do not require any interference by this Court. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. After dictation of the above order, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a direction be issued to the courts below for consideration of bail applications of the petitioners on the same day and time be granted to the petitioners to surrender before the court concerned.
(3.) THERE is a Seven Judge Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Amrawati v. State wherein it was held that application for bail should be decided by the Magistrate on the same day and if the application for bail is not decided on the same day, reasons must be recorded in writing. However, since the petitioner No. 3 Smt. Umrai Devi is an old lady of more than 75 years of age, it is directed that if the petitioners appear before the Magistrate within three weeks from today and apply for bail, the bail application of petitioner No. 3 be disposed of by the courts below on the same day and the bail application of other petitioners be disposed of expeditiously. FEB4 Petition disposed of.;