- (1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14.06.2013 passed by Learned ADJ Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter "the revisional court") by which the revisional court has allowed the revision petition Nos.15/2012 and 16/2012 filed by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 separately against the order dated 12.04.2012 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter "the trial court) taking cognizance against them for offences under Sections 420 & 120B IPC and discharged the accused-respondents for aforesaid offences.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in fact the trial Court took cognizance for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC against accused-respondents and the order of cognizance was challenged before the revisional court. There was no stage of framing of charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that it was in the knowledge of the accused-respondents that agreement dated 19.07.2003 executed in favour of petitioner-complainant by respondent No. 3 and Rs. 30,000/- was also received by respondent No. 3. In such circumstances when the agreement to the petitioner is in force, the execution of registered sale deeds in favour of the respondent No. 2 only amount to criminal conspiracy or criminal breach of trust to the petitioner by both the accused-respondents.
(3.) On the other hand the counsel for the accused-respondents has argued that the revisional Court has observed that the matter pertains to civil nature and criminal proceedings cannot be initiated and has rightly passed the impugned order. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned 14.06.2013 passed by the revisional Court and also gone through the material available on record. It is not in dispute that against the order of cognizance passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, revision petition was filed by the accused-respondents but the revisional Court while setting aside the order of taking cognizance dated 12.04.2012, has ordered to discharge the accused-respondents Smt. Rajni and Sandeep Kumar for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. whereas the trial Court did not frame charge of aforesaid offences and no order of framing of charge was under challenge.;