JUDGMENT :

RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

1. Counter affidavit has been filed and the same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

3. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 3.1.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Hapur in Crl. Case No. 670 of 2022 (State vs. Karan Singh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 29 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S. Babugarh, District Hapur, whereby discharge application moved by the revisionist accused has been dismissed.

4. Factual matrix of the case are that opposite party no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. with P.S. concerned on 20.1.2022 against revisionists with averment that informant is a senior citizen and physically disabled person. He is Bhumidhar of Khasra No. 955, Area 0.2530 hectare agricultural land which he had purchased for earning livelihood for his family. His co-villager Karan Singh S/o Chhidda Singh asked him to be a witness in a gift deed which was to be executed by him in favour of his daughter-in-law Monika Tyagi and the informant conceded to be a witness of proposed gift deed, however, on 21.8.2019 when he reached at Sub-Registrar Officer, Hapur, accused persons had got him intoxicated by administering him liquor and made him to sign a sale deed with regard to said agricultural land in collusion with Amarpal (revisionist no. 3). Informant came to know about this fraudulent deed when he got a copy of the same from Sub-Registrar Office. No consideration passed in respect of said sale deed and cheques which were described at the foot of sale deed belong to account of Karan Singh but the amount of cheques was not deposited in said account. In fact, no consideration passed between the vendor and vendee in respect of said sale deed.

5. Police investigated the case and filed charge sheet against accused revisionists after finding the complicity of accused persons in said offence. Accused persons were enlarged on anticipatory bail by the order of Court of Session.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the revisionists were enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 20.1.2023. Dispute is essentially of civil nature, inasmuch as the informant/opposite party no. 2 has filed a civil suit in Court of Civil Judge, J.D.-Ist Hapur cited as Case No. 148 of 2019 (Husanchand vs. Monika Tyagi) on 20.10.2019 in which he has sought relief of cancellation of alleged sale deed. Opposite party no. 2 never presented the cheques before his banker for encashment with mala-fide intention. Revisionists are still prepared to pay the amount of Rs. 7,60,000/-. The present F.I.R. was lodged after two and half years of the incident with mala fide intention as the rate of land escalated; with a view to deprive the revisionist no. 2 for purchasing land. The F.I.R. was lodged on 20.1.2022 subsequent to filing of civil suit.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist cited a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2021 (0) Supreme (SC) 628, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no. 44 has observed as under:

44. Furthermore, in the landmark judgment of State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others regarding exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. this Court has laid down following categories of instances wherein inherent powers of the can be exercised in order to secure the ends of justice. These are:

“(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of