PRATYUSH KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Tarun Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA.
(2.) VIDE office report dated 17.3.2015, opposite party No.2 has been personally served, service of notice on opposite party No.2 is held sufficient. He has not filed any counter affidavit and none is present for him.
(3.) THE instant criminal revision has been filed challenging the validity of the orders dated 25th February, 2014 and 5th September, 2014 passed by the special chief judicial magistrate, Allahabad in complaint case No.2385 of 2012 (Ganga Ram Nishad Vs.Jagdish Prasad Nishad and others). Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that summoning order dated 29th June, 2013 has been passed in a mechanical manner without applying judicial mind, therefore, the impugned orders issuing non -bailable warrant against the revisionist are improper and illegal. He further submits that by reading the complaint as well as the statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., ingredients of offences punishable under sections 420, 467 and 468 are not made out. In continuation to this statement, he has further submitted that examination of witnesses was not properly conducted by the magistrate. The magistrate has committed legal error while passing summoning order ignoring the fact that a civil suit (Original Suit No.220 of 2010) (Lallu and others Vs. Jagdish Prasad and others) between the parties is pending and only to pressurize the revisionist for entering into compromise, false, vexatious criminal prosecution has been initiated.;