Om Prakash -VII, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists with the prayer to set -aside the order dated 10.9.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Maudaha, District - Hamirpur in Complaint Case No. 64 of 2013 under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station - Maudaha, District - Hamirpur and discharge the revisionists from the aforesaid offences. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case.
(2.) IT appears that a Civil Suite was pending between the parties and opposite party No. 2 filed the aforesaid complaint against the revisionists in which the Court below recorded evidence under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the complainant vide order dated 5.7.2014 summoned the revisionists, namely, Smt. Premmani Edward Vishwanath, Edvin Vishwanath, Shyam Singh, Jagram Singh, Kaushendra Singh, Shiv Virendra Bhatnagar, Nagendra Singh, Parmeshwari Dayal and Shanker Dayal for the offence under Sections 465, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Aggrieved with the said order, the revisionists filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 32522 of 2014 for quashing the aforesaid summoning order dated 5.7.2014. By the order dated 20.8.2014 the said application was disposed of. The said order 20.8.2014 is quoted below: "Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding of complaint case No. 64 of 2013, under section 465, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Maudaha, District Hamirpur and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid complaint case. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the land in question belongs to one Bheem Maseeh, who had two sons namely Sukhnandan Bhima and Vishwanath Bhima. The land was purchased by the complainant from Sukhnandan and the applicant purchased from the heirs of Vishwanath Bhima. The applicants are bonafide purchaser. The land purchased by the complainant from Sukhnandan was not purchased by the applicants. Even suit for cancellation of the sale deed has been filed by son of Sukhnandan against complainant, opposite party No. 2. Hence entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. If contention of the applicant is correct then complaint is not maintainable even otherwise it is a dispute of civil nature. Hence when complaint is filed then duty of court concerned is to scrutinize the material carefully so any innocent person is not prosecuted and held guilty. Since the disputed question of facts requires appreciation of evidence hence at this initial stage it is not a fit case for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. The defence version of the applicants has to be considered by the court concerned at appropriate stage. If objection/discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicant within 30 days through counsel, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same on merit by speaking and reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, at appropriate stage, in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. Till application is decided on merit by the court concerned, at appropriate stage, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants. However, if application is rejected, applicants appear before the courts below within 30 days and apply for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed off expeditiously, if possible on the same day, in view of the principles laid down by Full Bench of this Court in case of Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in : 2004(57) ALR -390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. reported in : 2009 (4) SCC 437. With these observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby finally disposed off." It further appears that in compliance of the directions given in the said order dated 20.8.2014 passed by this Court, the revisionists moved application for discharge before the Magistrate concerned. The Magistrate concerned after hearing the parties vide impugned order rejected the discharge application. Hence this revision.
(3.) I have heard Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionists, Shri R.R. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned AGA appearing for the State opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.;