The instant revision application has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned order dated 27.3.2008 passed in C2 Case No. 109 of 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi, whereby the petitioners' prayer for their discharge in respect of the offences for which cognizance was taken has been rejected.

2. Facts of the case briefly stated, is that the criminal proceedings initiated before the court below was based on a complaint lodged by Sri A.P. Sharma, Sub-Judge-III, Ranchi in exercise of powers under Section 195(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 340 of the Code. The averments in the complaint relate to certain offences alleged to have been committed in relation to the proceedings in an execution case no. 1/83A which was pending in the Court of Sub-Judge VI, Ranchi. A suit for specific performance of contract of Title Suit No. 125 of 1981 was filed by the petitioners. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners on 18.10.1982. However, the decree could not be executed on account of continuation of the suit through appeal up to the Supreme Court. The judgment attained finality in 1995 by the order of the Supreme Court on the dismissal of the ultimate appeal preferred by the defendants. The execution proceedings vide execution case no. 1 of 1983A which was earlier initiated but remained stayed by the order of the appellate court, was revived after vacation of the stay. The Court of Sub-Judge-VI before whom the execution proceedings were pending, executed the sale deed dated 23.12.1998 and presented the same before the Registrar for registration. A chirkut purported to be the filing receipt, was issued by the Registry Office on the same day i.e. on 23.12.1998 in token of receiving the document for registration. In the meanwhile, Civil Revision Application filed by the defendant/judgment-debtor before the High Court vide Civil Revision Nos. 223 and 224 of 1009(R) were dismissed and direction was issued by the High Court on 27.1.1999 to the executing court to take steps for delivery of possession of the suit property. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the High Court, the executing court namely the Court of Sub Judge-VI commenced the process on 25.2.1999 for delivery of possession by assessing the cost for deputation of police force and Magistrate and on 1.6.1999, the executing court directed the petitioners/decree holders to deposit cost for deputing police force.

Thereafter, the execution proceeding was transferred from the court of Sub Judge-VII to Sub-Judge-VI.

On 1.7.1999, Sub-Judge-VI, directed for deputation of Magistrate for effecting the delivery of possession fixing the case on 21.7.1999 as the next date. On 24.7.1999, the executing court on the application of the petitioners issued writ of delivery of possession making the rule returnable on 23.8.1999 and to be executed by the Nazir of the civil court with the help of the police force and the Magistrate. The writ of delivery of possession was issued and signed by the Sub-Judge VI on 4.8.1999 and the writ was effected on 11.8.1999 by delivery of the suit property to the petitioners. However, on 23.8.1999, the Sub Judge-VI recalled its own order dated 24.7.1999 on the application filed by the judgment-debtor on 12.8.1999 on the ground that the registered documents were not received as yet and as such the decree holder has not acquired any title and also on the ground that the direction for issuance of the writ of delivery of possession was passed on account of the fault of the bench clerk as because on the said date i.e. 24.7.1999, the records of the execution proceedings were not produced and none of the parties were heard.

After the order of recall, as mentioned above, was passed by the Sub Judge-VI, the judgment-debtor filed an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 2.12.1999 before the Sub-Judge-VI alleging that the order for issuance of the writ of delivery of possession was ob