The Revisional Court has the power to dismiss a complaint if it finds it deficient and lacking in evidence to support the allegations.

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral) - Complainant is before this Court. Petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed at his behest against the order passed by Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar, dated 2nd of May, 2015 (Annexure P-3).

2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication in the present petition are that a complaint was filed by the petitioner claiming that he and Manjit Singh are real brothers. Jaswinder Kaur is legally wedded wife of Manjit Singh. In order to save matrimonial relation of Manjit Singh and Jaswinder Kaur, his brother i.e. petitioner purchased a plot in the name of Jaswinder Kaur vide Registered Sale Deed dated 19th of June, 1989. After Jaswinder Kaur and Manjit Singh migrated to Canada relations between petitioner and his brother and his family got strained. It has been alleged that Manjit Singh and Jaswinder Kaur started threatening petitioner to dispossess him from the plot purchased by him in the name of Jaswinder Kaur ibid. Petitioner preferred Civil Suit which was dismissed. Appeal arising out the same also admittedly stands dismissed. He further claims that the said plot has been sold by Jaswinder Kaur through her sister acting as her Attorney namley Ranjit Kaur vide Sale Deed dated 28th of December, 2007. It has been asserted that Power of Attorney dated 23rd of November, 2000 executed by Jaswinder Kaur in favour of the Ranjit Kaur instead stood revoked on 3rd of June, 2002. Thus, the said Sale Deed dated 28th of December, 2007 is result of fraud. All the respondents were said to be guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 217, 120-B IPC. Trial Court at the time of summoning found that offence punishable under Section 420 IPC was made out against the accused Jaswinder Kaur and Ranjit Kaur and, thus, ordered that they be summoned to face trial vide order dated 25th of January, 2014. The said order has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

3. Ranjit Kaur challenged the aforesaid order before the Revisional Court. It was held by the Revisional Court that :-

'12. To sum up the complainant is not on the right side of law while claiming that sale deed dated 19.6.1989 was Benami Transaction, as he already lost his case and cause on the civil side whereby Jaswinder Kaur has been accepted as owner of the property in question in her own right and guided by Mohd. Ibrahim's case, Darshan Singh not being entitled to carp cheating as there was o transaction whatsoever involving Darshan Singh whereby he may have been dishonestly induced by any of the accused much less having been made to part with his property to any of the accused as a result of such dishonest inducement.

13. In the ultimate outcome no offence much less punishable under Section 420 IPC can be said to have been committed by any of the accused and consequently the impugned order dated 25.1.2014 is held to be illegal, perverse and arbitrary and is hereby set aside and is reversed. The complaint filed by Darshan Singh is ordered to be dismissed.'

4. Hence, present petition.

5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court travelled beyond the scope of revision. He asserts that in fact Jaswinder Kaur never preferred any revision against the order dated 25th of January, 2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, SBS Nagar, summoning her to face trial yet merely on the revision preferred by Ranjit Kaur, complaint has been dismissed against Jaswinder Kaur as well.

6. Per contra, Counsel for the respondents submit that no fault can be found in the orders passed by Revisional Court. Relying upon Sections 397 and 399 Cr.P.C., it has been pleaded that Sessions Court is not precluded from exercising revisional powers by himself. Referring to the order passed by the Revisional Court, Counsels submit that the Revisional Court found that the complaint when tested on the touchstone of ingredients constituting offence punishable under Section 420 IPC was found deficient and,