The central legal point established in the judgment is the clarification of the larger revisional powers of the Court of Sessions under section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order passed by learned 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision No. 0/2003 on 13-6-2003.

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are as under:-

Non-applicant Shivcharan Sharma filed a private complaint against the applicant and other accused persons before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore under sections 420, 406 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. The matter was sent for investigation under section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code to the police. The police submitted a report without registering the case. On the basis of the report, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed the complaint under section 203 of Criminal Procedure Code. Against the aforesaid order revision was filed and the order was set aside. During the course of investigation by the police, a document, allegedly forged document, purporting to be the partition deed was produced before the police, therefore, complainant filed another complaint under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code based on the allegation that applicant had obtained possession of the house and scooter belonging to complainant on the basis of forged document prepared by him.

3. After recording statement of complainant and witnesses under sections 200 and 202 of Criminal Procedure Code respectively, learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under section 203 of Criminal Procedure, holding that controversy relates to agreement regarding family partition, therefore, the dispute is of civil nature. Against the order of Magistrate, complainant preferred a revision which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 425/2001. Learned 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore dismissed this revision and the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge was challenged by the complainant before High Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. This Court by order dated 2-1-2003 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 766/2002 set aside the impugned order dated 7-1-2002 passed by learned 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore and remanded the case back to lower revisional Court to decide the revision again in the light of certain directions given in the order.

4. Learned 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore after re-consideration allowed the revision petition filed by the complainant and set aside the order dated 30-8-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and he directed that complaint case under sections 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code be registered against only one Hansaraj Sharma @ Hansu out of the persons named as accused persons in the complaint. Hence, applicant has filed this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in issuing direction to the Magistrate to register criminal case under sections 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. His submission is that if sessions Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction finds that the Magistrate committed any error in dismissing the complaint under section 203 of Criminal Procedure Code, he could direct the Magistrate to make further enquiry only and he cannot issue direction to register a case, that too under any particular section or sections of Indian Penal Code or any other enactment. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance on the cases of Rajaram Gupta and Others v. Dharamchand and Others reported in 1983 MPLJ 56; G.D. Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 7990 MPLJ 39 and Harun Khan and Others v. Mahesh Chandra and Others reported in (1997) 2 Crimes 301 (M.P.)

6. Learned counsel for the non-applicant has on the other hand contended that learned lower revisional Court did not commit any error. His submission is that revisional Court has jurisdiction to reverse the findings of the Magistrate and give its own finding and can take prima facie view of the all