Amar Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records of the case. Notice issued to opposite party no. 2 has been received back after service but did not turn up.
(2.) This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 27.7.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj in Criminal Complaint Case No. 518 of 2009 (Rudal Vs. Smt. Radha Verma and another), under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., P.S. Sohagi Barwa, District Maharajganj, by which the learned Magistrate has rejected the application moved by the revisionists for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.
(3.) The facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of the revision are that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegation that plot no. 371 (1.177 hectare) is situated in Village Shikarpur, Tappa Doma Khand, Pargana Tilpur, Tehsil Nichlaul, District Maharajgang, which is belonging to the accused. Smt. Radha Verma and Navin Verma but complainant is ploughing the field on batai since last many years. On 5.3.2006, the accused has received Rs. 1,00,000/- as earnest money and agreed to execute the sale deed and it is well settled that rest amount be paid to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- at the time of execution of sale deed. On 5.2.2007, the accused has sold the land to other person. It is also alleged that as a security, the unregistered mortgage was executed in favour of opposite party no. 2. The above application was allowed and concerned police station was directed to register and investigate the case. After concluding the investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the final report by making observation to the effect that the present case was instituted against the respondent on the ground that the land in question was sold to other person and it was not sold to the respondent. The protest petition was filed against the final report which was treated as complaint by the Magistrate. Therefore, after recording the statements under Sections 200 Cr.P.C., there are sufficient material against the revisionists and summoning order was passed. Against the summoning order, revisionists moved application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing no. 25501 of 2010 (Smt. Radha Verma and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) which was disposed of with the direction that revisionists may approach the Magistrate under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for discharge. The application was rejected by the Magistrate.;