Heard parties counsel at length and perused the record.

2. This revision challenges the order dated 22.2.2013 passed by Addl. C.J.M. Court no. 1, Meerut in criminal case no. 369/9 of 2013 State Vs. Shashi Jain and others, whereby cognizance has been taken against the revisionist and three others on police charge-sheet for the offences punishable u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504 and 506 IPC Crime no. 354/10 P.S. Railway Road, Meerut.

3. It appears that on the application of opposite party no. 2 u/s 156( 3) Cr.P.C. an FIR was registered in P.S. Railway Road, Meerut at Crime no. 354/10 for the offences punishable u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504 and 506 IPC. After investigation, the police submitted final report. The opposite party no. 2 filed protest petition and after hearing the learned Magistrate through detailed order dated 18.2.2012 directed further investigation in the case and thereafter the investigation culminated into charge-sheet against the revisionist and three others, whereupon the learned Magistrate after perusing the case-diary and the documents has taken cognizance against the accused persons vide order dated 22.2.2013. Out of the four accused, only the revisionist has come up in revision.

4. The opposite party no. 2 contended in his application u/s 156( 3) Cr.P.C. that Jivandhar Jain and Aridaman Kumar Jain were joint owners of House no. 175, Purva Deen Dayal, Tirthankar Mahavir Marg, Meerut City. Pursuant to registered agreement of sale, Jiwandhar Jain executed sale deed of his share in the house in favour of Smt. Krishna Jain ( mother of opposite party no.2). In the sale-deed Smt. Shashi Jain wife of Jiwandhar Jain was one of the attesting witness. Smt. Krishna Jain applied for mutation of her name before Nagar Nigam along with affidavit of Smt. Shashi Jain and her name was duly mutated. However, after death of Jiwandhar Jain on 2.1.2003, Smt. Shashi Jain and her son Mayank Jain and daughter Megha Jain turned dishonest and in conspiracy with Aridaman Kumar Jain applied for mutation of their names in place of late Jiwvandhar Jain. The application for mutation was filed purporting to be pursuant to order of this Court dated 11.4.2005. They succeeded in getting the name of Smt. Krishna Jain expunged and their names were entered in the records of Nagar Nigam, Meerut. The opposite party no. 2 contended that the heirs of Jiwandhar Jain in active connivance and conspiracy of the revisionist applied for mutation concealing all relevant facts i.e. execution of sale deed by Jiwandhar Jain witnessed by his wife Smt. Shashi Jain, her affidavit dated 21.2.2003. The mother of the opposite party no. 2 after getting knowledge about the misdeeds of the accused persons on 17.12.2009 went to accused persons, who misbehaved, abused and gave life threats to them. The police did not lodge report, so on 7.1.2010 an application was submitted to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut but even then no action was taken by the police, so he has filed applied u/s 156( 3) before the Magistrate.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature as suit for cancellation of sale deed executed by Jiwandhar Jain filed by his legal heirs, and one suit for injunction filed by the revisionist against his brother Jiwandhar Jain are pending. The submission is that if all the allegations contained in the FIR are taken to be correct, even then no criminal offence is disclosed against the revisionist as the rights of the parties are to be adjudicated by the civil court.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 drawing attention of the Court to the counter affidavit has contended that the revisionist and Jiwandhar Jain were co-sharers of the dispute house. The revisionist had filed partition suit no. 710 of 1986, which was decreed and both the parties got half share in the house. On 29.8.2000 Jiwandhar Jain had executed agreement for