- (1.) The revisionists have filed this criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 18.05.2015 passed by the Addtional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Ambedkar Nagar, whereby the revision filed by the complainant was allowed and while setting aside the order dated 06.09.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, the matter was remanded back to the Magistrate concerned for framing of the charge.
(2.) I have heard Sri Abdul Rafey Siddiqui, learned counsel for the revisionists, the learned A.G.A. and Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
(3.) The submission on behalf of the revisionists is that the opposite party no.2 Shiv Prasad filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was allowed on 22.04.2010 and the police was directed to register the First Information Report and investigate the matter. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the applicants under sections 414, 420, 467, 468 IPC. When the revisionists came to know about the submission of the charge-sheet by the police, they appeared before the court below and moved an application for discharge on the ground that on the basis of the averments and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, no offence is made out against them. The opposite party no.2 had alleged that the disputed land bearing Gata No.417 was entered in the name of Aasaram. The allegation against the revisionists was that they prepared a forged affidavit and written statement in the case which was pending in the court of Civil Judge. Learned Magistrate considered the application filed by the revisionists and by the order dated 06.09.2014 allowed the application and discharged them from the offence under sections 414, 420, 467, 468 IPC. The opposite party no.2 preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Ambedkar Nagar and the matter was remitted back to the Magistrate concerned with the direction that the Magistrate should frame charge after hearing the parties and pass appropriate orders.;