Ram Autar Singh - (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 others), where under the revision has been allowed and the order dated 20.2.1998 passed by lllrd 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 465, 471,120-B 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, llambas 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 200 Cr.RC. and statements of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and summoned the revisionists to face trial under Sections 468,471 of I.P.C. The revisionists then moved an application before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi alleging the instant complaint to be barred by Section 195 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate allowed the said application and discharged the revisionists of charges under Sections 468,471,120-B of I.P.C. holding the said complaint to be barred by Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) (3) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by which, the respondent No. 2 preferred Criminal Revision No. 189 of 1998 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Varanasi, which was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 1, Varanasi vide judgment and order dated 17.10.2002 holding that the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. were not applicable to the said case in view of this fact that the said sale deed was forged in Calcutta (West Bengal) on 7.8.1990 and the same was used in District Varanasi on 18.12.1990 for getting their names mutated by Assistant Consolidation Officer, Varanasi and thus the Assistant Consolidation Officer was not required to file complaint in the said case. The revisionists then filed this revision against the said judgment and order.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionists has contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and contrary to material on record, because the revisionists No. 1 to 3 moved mutation application on the basis of registered sale deed executed in their favour and Assistant Consolidation Officer, Varanasi passed order dated 18.12.1990 mutating the names of the revisionists No. 1 to 3, against which Appeal No. 3290/508/319/901 (Smt. Radhikha Devi v. Om Prakash Singh and others) was filed before the S.O.C., Varanasi. Smt. Radhikha Devi and Smt. Ilambas also filed Original Suit No. 521 of 1993 (Smt. Radhikha Devi v. Om Prakash Singh and others) in the Civil Court for cancellation of the sale deed, which could not be decided by the civil Court and thus the Revisional Court committed illegality in allowing the revision without considering the fact of filing of the sale deed in mutation Court. Thus the complaint was barred by Section 195 of Cr.P.C. because the cognizance thereupon could be taken on the basis of the complaint filed by the Court itself. The learned counsel for the revisionists did not press this contention before this Court that the said complaint filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi was barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C, but he raised his argument solely on the point of territorial jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, with this contention that the forged sale deed was allegedly executed in Calcutta (West Bengal) and thus the complaint with regard to the same ought to have been filed in competent Court of Calcutta (West Bengal) and the same could not be filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.;