Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 13.7.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5 Meerut in Complaint Case No. 797 of 2011 (Suresh Kumar v. Surjeet Singh and others) whereby the discharge application filed by the applicants-revisionists under Section 245(2) Cr.PC. was rejected.

2. The case in hand has its genesis in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party No. 2 on 20.1.2011 against the revisionists in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Meerut alleging therein that the revisionist No. 1 Surjeet Singh being the owner of a shop situated in Village Kishanpur, P.S. Hastinapur, District Meerut had executed a declaration/unregistered sale-deed dated 13.2.2008 of the said shop for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the complainant and since then he is in possession over the said said shop and is running a hardware shop under a license issued by the Zila Parishad Kshetra Samiti and is regularly paying the different taxes like water, electricity etc. It is further alleged in the application that the revisionist Surjeet Singh with an intent to grab the said shop in connivance with the co accused namely Gurubachan Singh and Mohan Singh, again sold the same shop to his sons namely Hardas Singh and Sonu Singh through a registered sale-deed dated 14.12.2010 wherein the said co accused Gurubachan Singh and Mohan Singh have been made the witnesses of the sale-deed. It is further alleged that on 14.1.2011, all the revisionists came at the shop of the complainant at about 11 a.m. and threatened to have the possession of the said shop over which he is continuing in possession since 13.2.2008 from the date of declaration made by the revisionist No. 1. The complainant made the complaint of the said incident to the DIG, Meerut but of no avail. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the complainant (opposite party No. 2) was treated as complaint by the learned Magistrate and the Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of his witnesses namely Vijay Pal Sharma (P.W.-1) and Randhir (P.W.-2) under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and after considering the over all material available before him summoned the revisionists to face the trial for the offences under Sections 420,467,468,471,120-B IPC vide order dated 13.4.2011 passed by learned ACJM 5th, Meerut.

3. Revisionist herein preferred Criminal Misc Application 482 No. 15940 of 2011 (Hardas Singh and others v. State of UP and another) against the aforesaid summoning order before this Court and this Court vide order dated 17.5.2011 directed the applicants revisionists to move an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. before the trial Court and till the disposal of the said application no coercive action was directed to be taken against the revisionists. Pursuant to the order of this Court, revisionists moved an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., which was dismissed vide order dated 13.7.2011 by the Court below. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge before this Court.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionists that the impugned order is illegal, perverse and is not sustainable in the eyes of law inasmuch as the notarised document filed by the opposite party No. 2 in the complaint case are unregistered document and no reliance can be placed upon the said document. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that the whole story as alleged by the complainant is false and baseless. The revisionists No. 1 has never sold the disputed property to the complainant, never executed any declaration in favour of the complainant and has not received the alleged consideration from the complainant. Moreover, Section 49 of the Registration Act 1908 provides that an unregistered document cannot be read as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. It is further s