HARSH KUMAR,J. - (1.) Case called out. No one present for opposite party No. 2. Heard Sri K.D. Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(2.) The revision has been filed against the order dated 24.6.2011 passed by C.J.M., Moradabad in Case No. 13623/9 of 2010, under sections 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Civil Line, District Moradabad, dismissing the application of the revisionist under section 245(2) Cr. P.C., 1973
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist was Executive Engineer of P.W.D., Moradabad and opposite party No. 2 was Class IV Employee, working on the post of Neel Chitrakar; that the opposite party No. 2 was asking the revisionists for giving him the charge of Lab T.N.P. and when the revisionist refused to appoint him as Lab T.N.P., which is considered to be a lucrative post, the opposite party No. 2 has lodged a false F.I.R. against him through application under section 156(3) Cr. P.C., 1973; that in the F.I.R. it was stated that the revisionist was giving charge to him, regarding which complaints were made by him on 30.1.2010 to the Chief Minister and Superior Officers and in connection with taking charge on 11.5.2010, when he went to meet the revisionist in his office along with Amar Singh and Devesh Kumar Bhatnagar, the revisionist allegedly abused him with caste name and threatened him of life; that upon investigation final report was submitted against which protest petition was filed by opposite party No. 2, which was treated as complaint upon which the revisionist was summoned for the offences under sections 504 and 506 IPC; that the summoning order dated 17.2.2011 passed by the Magistrate was sought to be quashed by the revisionist through application 482 Cr. P.C. No. 8224 of 2011, which was disposed of with liberty to revisionist to move application under section 245 (2) Cr. P.C., 1973 before the trial court; that the application under section 245 (2) Cr. P.C., 1973 moved by revisionist has been rejected by the learned Magistrate by impugned order without considering the fact that there are material contradictions in the statements of complainant, the opposite party No. 2 and his witnesses; that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and by allowing the revision, the revisionist is liable to be discharged.;