Bharat Bhushan, J. - (1.) By means of this criminal revision, the revisionists have prayed for setting aside the order dated 13.3.2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Case No. 1362/9 of 2013 (State v/s. Padma Jain and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1149 of 2011, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sec. 420 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, Muzaffar Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar. It appears that Ms. Padma Jain purchased one warehouse (godown) by way of registered sale -deed dated 7.2.2011. It is alleged that vendor and vendee showed this constructed warehouse (godown) as a vacant plot in order to evade stamp duty and thereby caused revenue loss to the Government exchequer. One Subodh Kumar Jain, respondent No. 2/complain -ant lodged an FIR despite the fact that he was not the party to the said transaction in any manner. This FIR was registered on 1.11.2011 at P.S. Kotwali Muzaffar Nagar vide Case Crime No. 1149 of 2011, under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 379 IPC and 120 -B IPC. The matter was investigated and the Investigating Officer initially submitted the final report in the matter on the premise that the dispute relates to the evasion of stamp duty for which proceedings were already pending before the competent authority but subsequently the investigation was transferred, legal opinion obtained from the senior prosecutor and charge -sheet under Sec. 420 IPC was filed against five accused including vendee Padma Jain, her husband Sunil Kumar Jain, her son Sarad Jain, alleged middle man V.K. Jain and his son Anmol Jain. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sec. 420 IPC vide order dated 13.3.2013. It is this order which is subject -matter of challenge before this Court.
(2.) Heard Mr. Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Vinay Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and have perused the entire material available on record.
(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionists that no offence under Sec. 420 IPC is made out as the ingredients of the same are totally absent. The dispute is related to alleged evasion of stamp duty which has already been adjudicated by the competent authorities in separate proceedings initiated on the separate complaint of opposite party No. 2 himself. As far as criminal case under Sec. 420 IPC is concerned, opposite party No. 2 has no locus standi to initiate this criminal proceedings. The collector has also not given sanction to initiate proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (in short Stamp Act) as required under Sec. 70 of the Indian Stamp Act.;