Hon'ble Kant Tripathi - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the respondent and perused the record.
(2.) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is finally disposed of. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Code') has been filed against the order dated 4.6.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mau in Case No. 504 of 2005, (Ramakant Pandey v. Surya Nath Singh and others) whereby the applicants have been summoned as accused. It appears that the Additional Commissioner,Azamgarh Division Azamgarh while disposing of Revision No. 870/120M {Ram Badan v. Surya Nath Singh) under Section 219 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, found that the revenue record entry in favour of the applicant No. 1 in respect of Plot Nos. 1297 and 1333 of village Tajopur, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Mau was a forged entry and accordingly allowed the revision and directed that the aforesaid plots be recorded as Banzar in the revenue record. Against the order of the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner No. 1 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51950 of 2003 in this Court, which was finally disposed of with the direction that the matter may be taken before the regular Court for declaration of title. It further appears that the Additional Commissioner filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau against the applicants with the allegations that the applicants were responsible for the forged entry in the revenue record and prayed that they may be punished in accordance with law. The learned Additional Commissioner appears to have filed the complaint under Section 340 of the Code. Ultimately, the complaint was put up before the Judicial Magistrate, Mau and the -applicants filed a written objection against the maintainability of the complaint mainly on the ground that the Additional Commissioner had not held any inquiry under Section 340 of the Code., therefore, the complaint was not maintainable but the Judicial Magistrate rejected the objection and directed for issue of processes against the applicants.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the Additional Commissioner filed the complaint without holding an inquiry as contemplated by Section 340 of the Code, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable and the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance on such complaint. The learned A.G.A., on the other hand submitted that the alleged forgery was committed in the revenue record outside the proceeding of the matter decided by the learned Additional Commissioner, therefore, Section 340 of the Code was not attracted.;