1. Case called out. Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. are present. None responds on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stated that in Application U/s 482 No.23466 of 2010 (Virendra Pal Sigh Vs. State of U.P. & another) Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by it's order dated 21.07.2010 has ordered as follows:

"Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Complaint Case No.1719 of 2007 and Case No.152 of 2007, under Sections 420, 467, 568, 218/34 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar shall remain stayed against the applicant only."

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the present revision has been filed regarding the same set of incident and the similar order may also be passed by this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Bhatia Vs. State of U.P. [2012 (76) ACC 985].

5. The facts and circumstances of the case in hand are totally different from the facts and circumstances cited in the above Ruling.

6. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Bulandshahr in complaint case no.1390 of 2013 (Gopi Vs. Govind Ram and others), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 218/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr, whereby learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Accused persons Govind Ram, Ram Singh and Mahipal have preferred Application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. dated 06.01.2009 before the court of the learned II A.C.J.M., Bulandshahr in complaint case no.1719 of 2007 (Gopi Vs. Govind Ram etc.), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 218/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr with the prayer that since the case before the Consolidation Officer, Bulandshahr was fixed on 25.09.2004 but the complainant had no knowledge about that date so he could not attend the court and prayed to fix another date 05.10.2004. On 29.09.2004 the Consolidation Officer had passed a non-speaking order by writing 'Restored', although, no restoration application was presented to restore the order dated 25.09.2004.

9. The complainant has presented this application before the Consolidation Officer, Bulandshahr on 10.03.2006 to restore the ex-parte order dated 25.09.2004. In other words, the complainant has presented a false and vague complaint.

10. When the aforesaid ex-parte order dated 25.09.2004 was restored on 05.10.2004 and on merit it was finally decided in favour of accused Mahipal on 14.03.2008. In other words the complainant did not suffer any loss.

11. The complainant presented an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr on date 17.04.2006 which was allowed and order for registration of F.I.R. against the accused persons was passed. Against this order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr dated 17.04.2006 Criminal Revision No.322 of 2006 was preferred which was allowed vide order dated 17.06.2008 with the direction of rehearing the application and thereafter the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr passed another order dated 16.07.2008 that the application should be treated as complaint case.

12. On the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. case was registered in case crime no.C18 of 2006 in Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr which culminated into filing of final report by the Police concerned.

13. The complainant had filed a complaint case on the same facts in March, 2007 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, on which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr passed an order of summoning the accused persons on 11.09.2007. Ag