- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. Both the revisions under Sections 397/401, Cr. P. C. have been filed against the same order dated 28-3- 97 passed by the IXth Additional Session Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No. of 1997.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to these revisions are as follows: Anil Rawat was living in House No. 128/526-Kidwai Nagar, Naubasta, Kanpur and died in an unnatural death. An F. I. R. regarding his death was lodged by Satya Narain Rawat applicant in which it is al leged that the widow of Anil Rawat, Smt. Kamlesh, is also an accused. After the death of Anil Rawat, on the request of apphcant-Satya Narain Rawat the house hold goods were given to him by the police of P. S. Naubasta. Against that order op posite party, Smt. Kamlesh Rawat, moved an application before the Additional City Magistrate IV, Kanpur, who allowed the application on 10-7-95 and directed the Station Officer, Naubasta to take back the articles from the possession of Satya Narain Rawat and to give it in the Supurdgi of some independent person. THEreafter another order was passed by the same of ficer on 18-9-95 on the application of Smt. Kamlesh by which he recalled the order dated 10-7-95 and ordered that the articles given in the Supurdgi of Tejpal, be given in the custody of Smt. Kamlesh Rawat Smt. Kamlesh Rawat lodged an F. I. R. against applicant Satya Narain that the articles have not been given and have been misappropriated by him. THE further al legation is that the applicant Satya Narain Rawat, is the landlord of the house and there was collusion between him and Satya Narain Rawat and he has taken possession of the house. It was alleged in the applica tion that Anil Rawat committed suicide. That opposite party Smt. Kamlesh Rawat went to the house of her parents and in the meantime both the revisionists have taken possession of the articles and have also taken possession of the house. It was fur ther mentioned in the application that no doubt Satya Narain Rawat is the father in law of Smt. Kamlesh, but he ceased all his relations with the deceased and published a news in the Newspaper on 6- 7-93 that he has completely separated him. It is con tended that even then articles were taken by Satya Narain Rawat. He has misap propriated the same and his intention was malafide. The police after investigation on the complaint of Smt. Kamlesh Rawat sub mitted FR. She filed a protest petition but her protest petition was rejected by C. M. M. , Kanpur on 25-1-97. Against that order, the revision was filed by her and the impugned order has been passed. The revision has been allowed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has ordered that the F. R. is rejected and cognizance is taken for the offence under Sections 380, 406, 420 and 443, I. P. C. against both the revisionists. Aggrieved by that order the present revision has been preferred. The narration of facts prima facie shows that under the mala fide intention the applicant Satya Narain Rawat had taken the articles of deceased-Anil Rawat and the applicant-Surendra Nath Trivedi had taken the possession of the house il legally. The house was not vacated by the opposite party No. 2 nor it was released by any Court. The articles of the victim were lying in the house, which were taken by the police and the possession of the house was taken. Satya Narain Rawat had already ceased his all relations with the deceased in spite of that he claimed the articles and took in his possession.
(3.) THE contention of Satya Narain Rawat is that he had given the delivery of articles to opposite party No. 2 after the order dated 18-8-95 of the Additional City Magistrate. However, no reliable evidence regarding it has been produced. He may plead this fact in defence. In the circumstances, the revision was rightly allowed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur. I do not find any illegality in the order.;