1. This revision petition under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 preferred by the petitioners/accused is directed against an order dated 15th July 2010 passed in Sessions Case No.215/2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chachora, District Guna, rejecting thereby an application of the accused under section 227 of CrPC for discharging them of the charges for commission of offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 read with section 120B of IPC and fixed the case for recording prosecution evidence.

2. The fact, in brief, just for the decision of the case are that respondent No.1 Kishan Singh Meena filed a civil suit against his father Raghunath Singh Meena, Ratan Singh, his brother, Smt. Sushila, his sister and Rameshwar Singh, brother-in-law (husband of his sister Sushila) claiming his share in the agricultural land comprised in Survey No.483/01, 486/01, 489/01,492,494 and 496/01 total in area 1.104 hectare situated in Village Kumbharaj, District Guna. The said suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff complainant Kishan Singh. It is alleged that during pendency of the aforesaid civil suit, Ratan Singh, brother of respondent-complainant executed a Power of Attorney with regard to the share in the aforesaid family property in favour of his father Raghunath Singh. Raghunath Singh transferred two plots of the land in dispute by way of unregistered sale deeds in favour of Smt. Sushila Bai, his sister and Rameshwar Singh and pursuant thereto possession of those plots were handed over to them. It is stated that one B.R. Kamle, the CMO of Nagar Panchayat without verification of the facts regarding ownership or otherwise from the office record, issued a fictitious certificate in favour of Smt. Sushila to the effect that she is the sole owner of the disputed land. Having come to the notice of the respondent, he filed a complaint before the trial Court against Sushila, Rameshwar Singh and said B.R. Kamble, CMO of Nagar Panchayat, Chachoda on which the cognizance was taken by the trial Court for commission of offence under sections 420, 476, 468 read with section 120B of IPC and the case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, same was committed to the Sessions Judge, Guna. On committal, the trial is commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge Chachoda, District Guna M.P. Being aggrieved by the order of framing charge, two revision petitions bearing Criminal Revisions No.913/2009 and 923/2009 were submitted against the said order by the revisionists B.R. Kamble, Rameshwar Singh and Sushila before this Court. By an order dated 15th March 2010, this Court allowed both the revisions. The impugned order so far as it relates to revisionist B.R. Kamble for want of permission under section 195 of CrPC was set aside. So far as other revisionists are concerned, their revision was disposed of with a direction to them to move appropriate application before the learned trial Court to the effect that they have not committed any offence and their civil rights have already been determined by the civil Court. It is directed that if such an application is moved by them, the trial Court shall decide the same as per law. Consequently, the application under section 227 of CrPC was moved, which was dismissed by the order impugned.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is against the directions of this Court contained in the order dated 15th March 2010 as well as against the facts and the evidence adduced before the trial Judge and the law, hence, same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned trial Judge has not even considered any of the grounds raised in the application under section 227 of CrPC. Therefore, it is prayed that by allowing the revision petition, the accused-petitioners be discharged of the charges for commission of offences as alleged.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent N