AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) Heard Ms. Monica Vaish as counsel for the revisionist. Sri Amit Saxena as counsel for the opposite party nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, holding brief of Mrs. Manjari Singh, Advocate and learned A.G.A. None turned up on behalf of opposite party nos. 3 and 4 in spite of sufficient service through publication.
(2.) The revisionist, Pramod Kumar Gupta, has preferred this criminal revision against the order dated 01.10.2011 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, in Misc. Case No. 1187 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No. 6 of 2010, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447 I.P.C., Police Station Nazirabad, District Kanpur Nagar whereby the learned Magistrate after rejecting the protest petition accepted the final report.
(3.) The facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this revision are that an FIR was lodged with the allegation that father of the revisionist, namely, Puttu Lal Gupta, applied for a plot in Kanpur Development Authority in the year 1951. Subsequently, vide Board's proposal No. 11(5) dated 12.03.1951, the father of the revisionist was allotted plot No. 11, Block R-1 area 334 Sq. Yards. Later on, an application preferred by Late Puttu Lal Gupta, the allotment was modified in the name of his firm namely, M/s Yashodanandan Puttu Lal, vide proposal No. 2(25)(Ga) dated 26.12.1951. Accordingly, a lease deed was executed in favour of the aforesaid firm on 24.06.1952. Subsequently, the firm was dissolved and the property devolved in the name of Puttu Lal i.e. father of the revisionist and thereafter Puttu Lal Gupta died on 15.11.1993 and the said property devolved in the name of the revisionist/Promod Kumar Gupta. The accused namely Mukesh Pandey prepared a forged Will and got his name entered in the records of Nagar Nigam and on the basis of the same he transferred the said property in the name of his wife namely Smt. Ruchi Pandey and thereafter a forged sale deed was executed without there being any authority under law by Smt. Ruchi Pandey in favour of Vijay Kumar Malhotra on 22.02.2008. The Investigation Officer after concluding the investigation submitted the Final Report against which protest petition was filed, the learned Magistrate after hearing the parties rejecting the protest petition accepted the Final Report.;