IMPORTANT POINT
In a dispute of essentially civil nature criminal action should not be encouraged.
When a complaint petition and subsequent criminal revision has been dismissed, second complaint without any fresh facts will not be permissible.

Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellants and the respondent No.3 (complainant) are co-sharers. Raghuvansh Tyagi, father of respondent No.3, and Tika Ram Tyagi, father of Smt. Suman Devi were co-khatedars in respect of Khasra No.59 having an area of 2.0920 hectares of land situated in village Bhangel Begampur, PS Phase II, Noida. Father of Respondent No.3 and Suman Devi were having 3/16th share in the aforementioned khasra. According to the complainant, prior to 1997 a mutual agreement was entered into amongst the co-sharers, pursuant whereto, 2000 sq. yds. of lands was allotted for the purpose of residential house to each of the co-sharer. The complainant on his allotted land, allegedly constructed a house and started living there. He also said to have constructed 10 shops. Tika Ram Tyagi is said to have constructed two houses on 600 sq. yards of land and his sons also constructed pucca houses on the remaining 1400 sq. yds. of land in November 2006.

3. Tika Ram Tyagi executed a registered deed of sill on or about 24.2.1997 bequeathing all his moveable and immoveable properties in favour of his grand sons.

Husband of Smt. Suman Devi, Anil Kumar is said to have signed the said Will as one of the attesting witnesses.

On or about 1.8.2002, however, another Will was executed by Tika Ram Tyagi who had been suffering from throat cancer in respect of the same property in favour of Smt. Suman Devi. Appellant No.1 Hira Lal was a witness to the said Will.

It is stated that Suman Devi later on executed a `Bainama in favour of Ashok Kumar Tyagi, younger brother of appellant No.1 on the basis of the said Will. It stands admitted that in terms thereof Suman Devi got her name mutated in the Land Revenue Record on or about 26.9.2002. She, allegedly, sold nine shops in favour of Ashok Kumar Tyagi by reason of a `Bainama dated 22.10.2002. Yet again she sold another shop on 23.10.2002 by reason of another `Bainama in favour of Ashok Kumar Tyagi.

4. A civil suit was filed by the respondent in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gautam Budh Nagar, inter alia, praying for cancellation of the said Will on the premise that the said Will was a forged one. The said suit was dismissed by an order dated 29.3.2006. An appeal thereagainst is said to be pending. Prior thereto, Respondent No.3 filed a complaint petition in the Court of ACJM, Gautam Budh Nagar which was marked as Complaint Case No.212 of 2003 under Section 420, 462, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, inter alia, contending that the Will dated 1.8.2006 purported to have been executed by Tika Ram Tyagi in favour of his daughter Suman Devi was a forged and fabricated document. The learned ACJM, Gautam Budh Nagar, however, dismissed the said complaint petition, stating :

"Case called. Complainant is not present. No record has been submitted in compliance of the earlier order. File be put up at 3 pm for order. Photocopy of the Khatauni has been submitted by the complainant in which the names of Mukesh and other co-shareholders are mentioned in Khata Khatauni No.22, Khet No.59. Only becoming a co-shareholder of the land does not prove a sale deed or Will as fake or sham document. Since Tika Rams name is also one of the co-shareholders and the alleged sale deed and Will has not been declared to be fake or bogus by any other court, therefore, in the light of the record available in case file and oral evidence, no prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. The complaint under Section 203 is hereby rejected."

5. We may place on record that the learned ACJM by an order dated 13.2.2003, inter alia, opined that `no record was available in the file which could prove that the said Deed of Will are prima facie fake and bogus. A revision application was filed thereagainst by respondent No.3 which was dismissed by an order dated 8.4.2004.

6. Respondent No.3 thereafter filed another application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) making similar allegation