At the stage of framing of charge, the requirement is to determine whether a prima facie case regarding the commission of certain offenses is made out, and the existence of civil liability does not bar the continuation of criminal proceedings.

SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Indra Mani Tripathi, Advocate, for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for respondents.

2. This criminal revision under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed aggrieved by order dated 05.08.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad rejecting discharge application of revisionist in Case No. 1401 of 2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 457, 427, 506 I.P.C. and fixing date for framing charge.

3. Facts in brief are that a first information report was lodged on 13.11.2006 at Police Station George town, Allahabad vide Case Crime No. 222 of 2006 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 457, 427, 506 I.P.C. stating therein that applicant, Prabhunath Pandey, a resident of 274A-274B/92, Tularam Bagh, Allahabad, had constructed room wherein he often resides and medicines worth eighty five thousand rupees and some other items were kept. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, son of Dharmraj Mihsra, resident of Talab Nawal Rai, New Bairahna and his acquaintances tried to take possession thereon by constructing a wall on egress and breaking open the wall of their petrol pump. Upon resistance, Rakesh Kumar Mishra and his acquaintances arrived at informant's house no. 1-0/4A , Tilaknagar, Allahpur, Allahabad at 6:30 PM on 25.09.2006 and gave him death threats while firing bullets and hurling bombs. They warned informant not to go to 274A.274B/92, Tularam Bagh and also threatened to kill him in broad daylight if he tries to report this incident to the police, saying: "None can dare to lay a hand on me. I have taken possession of so many plots like this one." He did this act on being aided and abetted by Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, son of Late Adya Prasad Tiwari and his acquaintances. This Rajesh Kumar Tiwari by using different names, sometimes, as Rajesh and, sometimes, as Raju and by showing different addresses, sometimes, as 20 Liddle Road and, sometimes, as Pannalal Road, indulges in sale and purchase of plots and entangles other people by executing fake registries. Showing himself an attorney of Smt. Gayatri Devi, wife of Late Omkar Nath Awasthi, he has executed a fake saledeed in respect of plot situated at 274 Tularam Bagh, concerning which a case is instituted in Court and construction work is on hold. He has also executed fake registries in favour of 1. Vidyasagar, son of Mangilal 2. Manikchand, son of Late Biharilal 3. Umapati Pandey, son of Late Radheyshyam Pandey 4. Dharmraj, son of Late Indrajeet Mishra 5. Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, son of Moolchandra Jaiswal 6. Smt Kanchan Mishra, wife of Rajesh Mihsra, despite the fact that many cases are pending with the Court and there is a stay order on the whole plot. Case No. 634 of 2004 thereof is sub-judice. In this way, despite the stay order, the plot and shop registered in the name of his (the applicant's) son is being encroached upon and occupied by misdeeds of Rajesh Kumar Tiwari with the aid of his henchmen. The mandate of law and justice is being shredded; the applicant is being frequently threatened to be killed by Rajesh Kumar Tiwari and his accomplice and the room is being attempted to be encroached upon by throwing out valuable medicines worth over fifty thousand rupees stored therein. Request was accordingly made to ensure immediate action.

4. Usual investigation followed and police submitted charge sheet on 23.04.2007 against the accused-revisionist. Accused-revisionist thereafter moved discharge application on 10.06.2008 which has been rejected by Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad vide impugned order dated 05.08.2008. Being aggrieved, revisionist has filed present revision.

5. Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that since Civil Suits No. 294 of 1989 and 85 of 2006 for cancellation sale-deeds executed by revisionist are already pending and opposite party-2 has also filed a Complaint Case No. 5306 of 2004 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1881