JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

1. Heard Sri Shashi Kant Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gokaran Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the judgment and order dated 05.09.2011 passed in Criminal Revision No. 222 of 2010, Ajay Kumar and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another) by Additional District & Sessions Judge, court no. 3, Mau whereby the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau passed in complaint case no. 4289 of 2008 dated 31.08.2010 was not interfered at and the revision was dismissed.

3. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction in the nature of ceriorari to quash both the orders dated 05.09.2011 and 31.08.2010.

4. For clarity following relevant facts are being narrated:

(i) Respondent no. 2 Angnoo Singh Yadav filed a criminal complaint before C.J.M. Mau alleging that co-accused Dhanauti Devi sold her house to complainant’s aunt Buddha Devi in 1986; accused-petitioner no. 1 Angad stood as marginal witness, and Buddha Devi sold that house to complainant’s bhabhi Radha Devi in 2007 and since then purchaser was in possession thereof; accused-petitioner no. 1 was tenant in that house; when the purchaser demanded rent from him he did not pay the same and instead filed a case in civil court; he who himself was the marginal witness of the sale deed of 1986 fraudulently obtained receipt by depositing house tax of the house in question and got his name mutated in the Nagar Palika papers; On 03.12.2008 all the accused persons intruded in his house/shop and removed Rs.4000/-from cash counter and threatened him either to settle the matter or to face the consequences.

(ii) Learned Magistrate summoned only Angad and Dhanauti Devi for the offence under Section 397, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The complainant filed a revision and the court of sessions set aside the summoning order and called upon the Magistrate to pass an order afresh. The Magistrate passed second order on 31.08.2010 summoning the petitioner no. 1 Angad and his wife Dhanauti Devi under Section 418 and 420 I.P.C. and petitioners no. 2 to 4 and Dhanauti Devi under Section 397, 504,506 and 120-B I.P.C. Challenging the above orders the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision no. 222 of 2010 but the same was dismissed by order dated 05.09.2011. Now the petitioners are before this Court by means of this criminal writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that both the orders have been passed without application of mind. At the most controversy is only civil in nature. This complaint has been filed to harass and humiliate them. The entire story is false and concocted and in fact no prima facie case is made out against them. Subject matter of the sale deeds is house no. 94/1 and petitioners’ house is numbered as 94.

6. The contentions of the petitioners are opposed by respondent no. 2 on the ground that in a judicial order this Court is not allowed to interfere while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition should be dismissed at the very threshold. To stress above point. Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and Another vs. Chhabi Nath and Others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 has been referred to. The apex court in the aforesaid judgment held that writ of certiorari lies to bring decisions of an “Inferior court” tribunal, public authority or any other body of persons for review so that the court may determine whether they should be quashed or not. However, expression “interference” the court is not referable to the judicial courts Writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts. The Apex Court in Para-25 further observed as below:

“25. All courts in the jurisdiction of a Hi