Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

1. This criminal revision has been preferred against order dated 07/02/2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Varansi in Complaint Case No. 502/2012, Vipat vs Sauraybali and another under sections 420, 467, 468 IPC, PS Manduadih, whereby application for discharge of the accused-revisionists dated 30/11/2013 has been dismissed.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Ramendra Nath Tiwari and learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 Sri Ashok Kumar and learned A.G.A.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are as follows. Opposite party No. 2 had filed a complaint stating therein that complainant and his younger brother had ¼ share in Arazi No.36 area 6 ½ D. In the same Arazi Bodam had 1/16 share and after his death his legal heirs have been mutated. In his lifetime, Bodam executed a sale deed on 18/9/1984 of 6 ½ D. share in favour of Shashi Kapoor and Subhash; of one biswa in favour of Nirahu on 24/0 4/85; of 2283 square feets in favour of Smt. Basanti Devi on 25/5/1995; of 4 ½ D. i.e. 1957 ½ square feet in favour of Krishna Lal Talwar on 25/07/1995; 1826 square feet in favour of Mishri Lal on 29/0 6/1999; of 1/2 biswa i.e. 2040 square feet in favour of Fuldor Tirki; of 2881 square feet i.e. 267.7 5 square meter in favour of Jyoti Tirki on 25/04/2006. Thus he sold land of Arazi No. 36 beyond his share. His legal heirs namely, Surybali, Shiv Shankar, Hari Shankar and Kaushalya Devi had full knowledge about this fact, even then they filed a written statement dated 04/04/2007 in case No. 16 of 2004 Jhunki Devi and others vs Bodam and others in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali Varanasi stating that Bodam had not executed any sale deed of any part of the Arazi No. 36 in favour of any person nor any family settlement had taken place. To derive benefit out of the wrong information given in written statement in the above case, the above-mentioned legal heirs of Bodam executed sale deed dated 18/11/2008 of 1360 square feet land of Arazi No. 36 belonging to the share of complainant and his brothers, again to Fuldor Tirki. Even the purchasers had this knowledge that Bodam had sold land beyond his share high-handedly with a view to causing harm to the complainant and his brothers in collusion with the purchasers. The complainant and his brothers had sold 2556.8 square feet of land of Arazi No. 19/1 which fell in their share. The revisionist- opposite parties had filed objection in the mutation proceedings of Arazi No. 90/1 and the legal heirs of Bodam had got the case filed in the Court of ACM 1st Varanasi under section 145 Cr.P.C. stating therein that the said land was received in family partition. In this complaint the date of occurrence is mentioned 18/9/1984, 25/4/1985, 22/5/1995, 25/7/1995, 29/6/1999, 6/5/2003, 25/4/2006, 18/11/2008 and 19/8/2011.

4. This complaint was registered as complaint case No.502 of 2012, Vipat vs Surybali and others and in the summoning order dated 22/12/2012, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-2, Varanasi has written the facts of the case mentioned above adding therein that on 19/08/2011 the revisionists Surybali, Shiv Shankar and Hari Shankar came to Arazi No. 36 along with the purchasers, against which police was approached by moving an application but no action was taken. It is further mentioned in the order that the complainant had stated under section 200 Cr. P.C. that the revisionists had sold land beyond their share. A small piece of land of Arazi No. 36 was in possession of the complainant-O P No. 2. In a statement under section 202 Cr.P.C. Chhotey Lal and Ishwar Prasad were produced, who had supported the complainant's version. From the side of the complainant-O P No. 2 certified copies of the sale deeds executed by Bodam during his lifetime and of the sale deed dated 18/11/2008 executed by the revisionists were presented. It became clear from the perusal of khatauni and other documents given fro