Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi,J.

1. Heard Sri Dharam Pal Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the revisionists, Sri Jai Shanker Audichya, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party no. 1 and perused the record.

2. The revisionists has made following prayers:-

(i) Call for the records of the case;

(ii) Set aside/quash the summoning order dated 27.8.2005, the charge sheet dated 16.3.2005 and all subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof pending against the applicants in criminal case no. 1428 of 2005 (State vs. Arun Kumar Srivastava and others) pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai, under Sections 420/467/468 and 471 of I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun,

(iii) Stay further proceedings of criminal case no. 1428 of 2005 (State Vs. Arun Kumar Srivastava and others), pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai under Sections 420/467/468 and 471 of I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun;

(iv) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case to secure the ends of justice.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has argued as follows:-

(1) Plot No. 241 is a public land. The area of Plot No. 276 is 4.80 acres out of which 0.25 decimal area of land belongs to the opposite party no. 2. Plot No. 256 belongs to the revisionists.

(2) The abovementioned Plot nos. 241, 276 and 256 are situated adjacent to each other.

(3) In the civil courts having territorial jurisdiction in the district of Jalaun at Orai different civil suits are pending.

(4) The opposite party no. 2 does not possess any authority to move any application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 because he is not an aggrieved party.

(5) The matter in dispute can be adjudicated by the civil courts or revenue courts and not by the criminal courts.

(6) This is a malicious prosecution.

(7) Case No. 2 of 1992 was filed under Section 133 Cr.P.C. against Sri Ram Hetu (one of the transferees of informant) alleging that aforesaid Ram Hetu has illegally occupied certain portion of gata no. 241. Regarding that, the court of learned the then District Judge, Jalaun at Orai had passed a judgment and order dated 28.10.1994 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1994-Sri Bramha Dutt Pathak Vs. Zila Panchayat Jalaun at Orai dismissing the appeal with cost which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of revision.

(8) While passing the impugned order dated 27.8.2005, no judicial mind was applied by the then learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai.

(9) No offence is made out against the revisionists.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted as follows:-

(1) The summoning order cannot be challenged in the criminal revision.

(2) Mere institution/pendency of the civil suits may not bar the criminal proceedings.

(3) In such type of offence, there is precedence of the criminal case over civil case.

(4) There is no bar for the private individual to lodge the F.I.R. in such type of offences.

(5) The issue of locus standi raised by the learned counsel for the revisionists has no force.

The factual matrix of the case in narrow compass is enumerated as below:-

5. The informant/applicant Bramha Dutt Pathak on 16.4.2001 presented an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 before the court seized with the criminal judicial territorial jurisdiction situated in district Jalaun at Orai for registering the F.I.R. against the opposite parties/accused persons namely Arun Kumar Srivastava, Rajendra Singh Gurjar, Krishna Kant Gupta, Raghvendra Singh Gurjar and Manvendra Singh Gurjar, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 472 I.P.C. by the Inspector Incharge Police Station Kotwali Orai. This application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 was presented regarding Plot Nos. 241, 256, 257 and 276 alleging therein that the aforementioned opposite parties have committed the offences of crimin