- (1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 10.04.2012, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar, whereby the learned Magistrate had rejected the petitioners' application under Section 195 Cr.P.C. They are also aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed their revision petition and has upheld the order dated 10.04.2012.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No.2, Abhay Singh had entered into an agreement to sell on 15.11.1995 and had sold his agricultural land to the petitioners. The petitioners filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract, but the same was dismissed on 21.02.2003 as the agreement in question was found to be a forged document. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioners filed S.B. Civil First Appeal No.145/2003 before this Court, which was admitted. Thereafter vide order dated 05.09.2005, this Court directed the parties to maintain the status quo as of that date. The said appeal is still pending before this Court. Subsequently, a criminal complaint was filed by the complainant-respondent against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC with regard to the alleged forged agreement. Upon this complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC against the petitioners. During pendency of the criminal case, the petitioners filed an application under Section 195 Cr.P.C. for dropping the case as their first appeal is pending before this Court. It was further averred in the application that the issue, whether the alleged agreement is a forged one, has not been decided as yet. Thus no cognizance can be taken against the petitioners for the offences, mentioned above. But the said application has been dismissed by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 10.04.2012. Challenging the above order, a revision petition was filed by the petitioners. But that, too, has been dismissed by the learned Judge, by order dated 19.01.2013. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Raj Kamal Gaur, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the complaint filed by Abhay Singh, the complainant was based on the finding of the Civil Court that the agreement to sell entered between the parties was a forged one. However, the petitioners have challenged the said judgment of the Civil Court before this Court through their First Appeal; this Court has granted a stay of maintaining status quo. Therefore, the finding of the Civil Court is still sub-judice before this Court.;