- (1.) R. K. Singh, J. None appears for the revisionists. Mr. Sudhir Mehrotra, learned A. G. A. and Rajesh Singh holding brief of Sri Brahma Singh for opposite party No. 2 Smt. Sushma Mehrotra who are present have been heard. The impugned order has been challenged in the revision petition passed by 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Criminal Revision No. 250 of 1993. The order dated 1st May, 1998 has been carefully perused.
(2.) THE opposite party No. 2 lodged complaint making certain allegations on the basis of which Judicial Magislralc,-1st Class, Thakurdwara, District Moradabad passed order dated 12-8-1994 summoning the accused persons who are now revisionists, namely, Raj Kishan Shanker Sethi and Anil Kumar Sethi to stand trial under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 470 I. PC. THE order of the Judicial Magistrate was challenged in the rcvisionai jurisdic tion before the Sessions Judge, Moradabad which was decided by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge in Revision Petition No. 223 of 1994. THE learned revisional Court dismissed the revision petition and remanded the case to the lower Court directing the Judicial Magistrate to afford reasonable oppor tunity of hearing to the accused before making an order summoning the accused. After remand, the learned Judicial Magistrate heard both the parties and passed the order dated 30-9-1997 recalling the earlier order dated 12-8-1994 sum moning the accused persons to stand trial. Against this order again a revision petition was filed being Revision No. 250 of 1993 in which 13th Additional Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order restoring the original order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 12th August, 1994 summoning the accused persons to stand trial. The orders noted in the foregoing paragraphs has been carefully perused. The allegations are to the effect that even after having full knowledge of the fact that power of attorney has been cancelled, the accused persons executed sale-deed of the immovable property of the complainani opposite party No. 2 Smt. Sushma Mehrotra. The impugned order of the 13th Additional Sessions Judge has discussed all the materials on record and the law applicable in this case. The allegations levelled by the complainant must gel final conclusion after affording opportunity of hearing to the complainant and the ac cused both under the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revisionists who are accused in the criminal case have opportunity to defend themselves. The law cannot be utilised to close the legal proceedings at the instance of any party of a criminal case. The accused persons who have been ordered to answer the allegations levelled by the opposite party No. 2 in the criminal Court must permit the trial to proceed to its logical conclusion. There-Fore, there is no error or illegality in the order restoring the summoning order dated 12th August, 1994. The trial has already been delayed for long for more than four years.
(3.) THE revision petition is dismissed. THE interim order dated 6th August, 1998 staying the further proceedings in the Court below are discharged. THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad is directed to proceed with the hearing of the criminal case (Case No. 122 of 1991 Crime No. 253 of 1998 under Sections 420, 460, 470, I. P. C. P. S. Thakurdwara District Moradabad) expeditiously. Revision dismissed. .;