JUDGMENT :

This criminal revision has been filed for challenging the impugned judgement and order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), FTC, Basti in Criminal Misc. Application No.462/2012/2022 (Vishwanath vs. Shivnath), under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Basti.

2. By the impugned order, trial Court has rejected the application of the revisionist filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for directing the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti to register and investigate the criminal case against the opposite party No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist has filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alleging that his younger brother, namely, Shivnath (opposite party No.2) committed forgery and obtained the registered will deed by his father-Drigpal on 16.05.1994. He further submitted that revisionist had filed Civil Suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti, which was registered as Suit No.202 of 1995. In the aforesaid suit, revisionist had challenged the will deed dated 16.05.1994, which was executed in favour of opposite party No.2 (Shivnath). This suit has been decreed in favour of the revisionist vide order dated 04.04.1995 and will deed executed in favour of the opposite party No.2 has been cancelled. After ten months of the decree of the aforesaid suit, opposite party No.2 instituted Original Suit No.127 of 1995 for cancellation of the aforesaid order dated 04.04.1995 passed in Original Suit No.202 of 1995. The aforesaid suit instituted by the opposite party no.2 was rejected by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti on 25.01.1997. Against the order dated 25.01.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), opposite party No.2 filed revision i.e. Revision No.23 of 1997 before District Judge, Basti, which was also rejected vide order dated 12.11.1998. Against the aforesaid order of the Revisional Court, opposite party No.2 also filed a writ petitioner bearing Writ-C No.189 of 1999 before this Hon’ble Court, which was dismissed on merit vide order dated 08.01.1999. The opposite party No.2 after concealment of earlier order passed by competent Court cancelling the will deed, filed mutation proceedings with false affidavit and forged cancelled will dated 16.05.1994 before Tehsildar-Sadar, District Basti on the basis of aforesaid affidavit and will deed, the Court concerned passed order in favour of opposite party No.2 on 23.07.2007 and directed the Revenue Authority to record the name of opposite party No.2 in place of his father-Digpal on the basis of aforesaid will deed. After knowledge of the aforesaid order dated 23.07.2007, the revisionist filed recall application along with relevant details, Tahsildar, Sadar, District Basti vide order dated 04.02.2009 allowed the recall application of the revisionist and directed to record the name of revisionist and his real brother in place of their father in revenue record. Against the aforesaid order, opposite party No.2 also filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Basti under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act, which was rejected vide order dated 30.03.2010. Subsequently, the opposite party No.2 concealing the earlier proceedings initiated before the authority concerned, instituted the further mutation proceedings under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act 1901 for recording his name over the property of his father, but it was rejected vide order dated 06.09.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that from the averments made in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and affidavit filed in support thereof, prima facie offence under Sections 420, 467, 478 I.P.C. was made out against the opposite party No.2, but without considering the facts and evidence given therein, Magistrate concerned illegally rejected the application of the revisionist filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the same is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, le