Point of Law: Offence of Forgery – Quash of order - Court not find any criminal act having been committed during entire process. Only person who could have been aggrieved was seller, who’s statement was recorded before Police authorities during investigation, and he also clearly stated that he had no grievance against purchaser.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mathur, J.

1. Heard Sri Diwakar Pratap Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

2. By means of present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has assailed the order dated 16.11.2018, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Crime No. 218 of 2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station - Bhiti, District - Ambedkar Nagar as well as order dated 03.09.2019, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 95 of 2019 - Subhkaran Vs. State of U.P. and Another.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant purchased 1/2 share of Gata No. 805, area 0.686 hectares, situated at Village - Chandapur, Tehsil - Bhiti, District - Ambedkar Nagar from one Ram Piyare S/o Ramkaran, resident of the applicant's village on 2nd July, 2003. Subsequent to the purchase of the said land, the applicant moved an application for mutation. On his application for mutation, the Revenue Authorities mutated the entire area of Gata No. 805 in favour of the applicant. In the meanwhile, earstwhile owner of the property - Ram Piyare, expired, leaving his son Vipin Kumar, who moved an application for rectification of the mistake and his application was allowed and the revenue authorities duly corrected the mistake committed earlier. Subsequently, it has also been stated that Vipin Kumar executed a sale deed of the remaining 1/2 area of Gata No. 805 in the name of applicant's sons namely Chintamani Pandey and Sheshmani Pandey. In the present case opposite party no. 2 is the complainant who lodged the first information report against the applicant on 09.09.2013, stating that the applicant had committed fraud in collusion with the revenue authorities and thereby the entire area of Gata No. 805 was mutated in favour of applicant. The complainant has stated that correct facts were deliberately concealed from the revenue authorities and therefore, first information report dated 09/10.09.2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station - Bhiti, District - Ambedkar Nagar was lodged. The Police investigated the matter wherein statements of the revenue authorities were also recorded alongwith the statement of the applicant as well as Sri Vipin Kumar - complainant (son of original owner of the land). The Police after investigation was of the opinion that no case is made out and submitted final report before the Court of Magistrate on 15th September, 2013. On 03.12.2014, an application was moved by Vipin Kumar before the Magistrate requesting to accept the report submitted by the Police while opposite party no. 2 moved a protest application on 22.06.2016.

4. By means of order dated 16.01.2018, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar rejected the final report and took cognizance of the case under Section 190(1)b of Cr.P.C. and treating the application of opposite party no. 2 as complainant case issued summons to the applicant.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2018, the applicant filed revision before the Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, who also upheld the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and dismissed the revision preferred by the applicant by means of order dated 03.09.2019, which has been impugned in the present application.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed great reliance on the fact that there is no dispute among the seller, purchaser and the revenue authorities. He submits that it is not the case that there was any fraud factual or otherwise or manipulation in the records by either of the parties. He further submits that the applicant has purchased 1/2 share of Gata No. 805 and when the applicant moved an application for mutation, due to some mistake, the revenue authorities mutated the entire area of Gata No. 805 in favour of the applicant and on coming to kn