1. Heard Mr G. S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M. M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned AGA on behalf of State and have perused the material on record.

2. By means of this criminal revision, revisionist has prayed for quashing of the summoning order dated 4.3.2011 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in Criminal Case No. 1817 of 2009, (State Vs Abdul Bari) arising out of Case Crime No. 163 of 2009, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 468 IPC, P.S. Colonelganj, District Allahabad.

3. The facts leading to the present criminal revision are that opposite party no. 2 lodged an FIR on 19.3.2009 against the revisionist vide case Crime No. 163 of 2009, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, P.S. Colonelganj, District Allahabad for an incident alleged to have taken place on 2.3.1982. It is stated that revisionist and opposite party no. 2 were co-sharer in Bhumidhari Plot No. 68 measuring 2 bigha, 13 biswa situated in Village Bhagwatpur, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Allahabd and the said land was sold by the revisionist through a registered sale deed on 2.3.1982 in favour of one Ghanshyam Singh knowing fully well that the said land belongs to opposite party no. 2. It is further alleged that when the said act of revisionist came into knowledge of the opposite party no. 2, he immediately got his name mutated in the revenue records and further there was apprehension in the mind of opposite party no. 2 that the revisionist, who is co-sharer with opposite party no. 2 over other lands, might execute sale deeds of the lands which are exclusively possessed by the opposite party no. 2.

4. The matter was investigated by the police and the Investigation after concluding the investigation submitted the charge sheet in the matter on 21.9.2009 against the revisionist under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, upon which learned Magistrate took cognizance on 24.11.2009 and case was registered as Case No. 1817 of 2009, and thereafter the court below summoned the revisionist to face the trial vide order dated 4.3.2011. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge before this court.

5. It is contended by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of revisionist that no offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC is made out against the revisionist and further the dispute in the present case is of purely civil nature and has been maliciously converted into criminal offence and further a suit under Section 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (In short UPZA & LR Act) for declaration of Bhumidhari rights over the land in question is pending against the opposite party no. 2 before the competent court. It is further submitted that the court below has passed the impugned order without mentioning the sections under which the revisionist is sought to be summoned and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Further the court below has also failed to consider the fact that the FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about 27 years for an incident which took place on 2.3.1982 and that no reason has been assigned while taking cognizance of the offence. It is also submitted that a criminal proceeding between the co-sharers of a joint property should not be allowed to proceed rather it is mere an abuse of process of court and it would be unfair.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist after taking the Court through the entire material and the allegations made in the FIR and all other relevant materials on record contended that even if all the allegations made against the revisionist are taken at their face value, no case under any provision of the Indian Penal Code, is made out. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is confined to the extent of their respective shares and for that a suit has already been filed. For such right e