- (1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. Both these applications under Section 482, Cr. P. C. have been filed for quashing the order dated 17-5- 2006 passed in Crl. Case No. 86/04, Chandra Prakash v. Om Prakash and Ors. , pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Court No. 17, Jaunpur as well as the order dated 28-4-2006 passed by the revisional Court.
(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of these applications are that the complainant opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. against the accused Om Prakash, Satya Prakash, Ved Prakash, Pyare Lal, Akhilesh Chandra Gupta and Ram Ji Gupta with these allegations that one Kanhaiya Lal son of Sri Ram Nath had executed a Will of his property in favour of Mohan Lal, father of the complainant Chandra Prakash and this property was inherited by him and his brothers. Accused Om Prakash and others threatened to interfere with their possession over the property and so the complainant filed a regular suit against them. THEn accused Om Prakash prepared a fictitious Will of Kanhaiya Lal in collusion with some witnesses and scribe. This Will dated 25-2-1977 was totally a forged document. THE complainant came to know about this document for the first time on 17-5-2004 then he went to the police station to lodge F. I. R. but his report was not written there, then he moved the application 156 (3) Cr. P. C. On the above application learned Magistrate passed an order directing the police to register a case and to get it investigated. Then the police after registration of the case, investigated the same but submitted final report in the case. The complainant opposite party No. 2 filed a protest petition. The Magistrate passed an order for treating the protest petition as complainant and passed an order summoning the accused after recording statements of the complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. Aggrieved with the above order Chandra Prakash complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 106 of 2006. This was heard and decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur vide his judgment and order dated 28-4-2006. He set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and remanded the matter to the Magistrate to pass a fresh order in the matter after hearing the parties.
(3.) IN compliance of the above order, the learned Magistrate passed order dated 17-5-2006 rejecting the final report and directed the police to reinvestigate the matter. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge 28-4-2006 and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 17-5-2006 the present application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed. A counter-affidavit on behalf of opposite party No. 2 Chandra Prakash in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7165/06 has been filed. No counter was filed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7453 of 2006 in spite of personal service of opposite party No. 2 who is the same person in both the applications.;