ORDER

(01.04.2021) The instant revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2020 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Criminal Revision No.104/2018 (Filing No.Cr.R/4451/2018) whereby learned ASJ has set aside the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by JMFC, Balaghat by which application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent has been dismissed. The learned ASJ has remanded back the case to the concerning JMFC with a direction to decide the case in accordance with law.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent has filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before learned CJM, Balaghat stating therein that the petitioner and respondent are relatives. Land of Khasra No.320/1, 320/2, 328/1, 266, 267/2, 273/1 ad-measuring area 0.34, 0.85, 1.41, 0.23/1/2, 0.11 and 0.64 Acres, respectively, situated at Village Sarekha are registered under the joint ownership of petitioner, respondent and respondent's mother. It has been alleged against the petitioner that he connivance with officials of Revenue Department and with manipulation, has entered his name as sole owner in the Revenue record in the aforesaid land. It is further mentioned in the application that the respondent approached the Police Station-Balaghat as well as S.P. Balaghat to take necessary action and registering the FIR against the petitioner but they had not taken any action.

3. The learned JMFC Balaghat has called the police report from the concerning police station and also recorded the statement of complainant's witness Ashok Kumar Uikey (Revenue Inspector). Thereafter, despite giving several opportunities, the complainant/respondent has failed to produce further evidence/witness in support of his complaint and therefore, on 12.10.2018, the learned JMFC has passed the order of dismissal considering the police report.

4. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant approached the II ASJ, Balaghat by availing the remedy of revision petition wherein the learned ASJ found that the order passed by the learned JMFC suffers from perversity and therefore, the revision petition was allowed and case remanded back to the concerning JMFC for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned ASJ is suffering from perversity and illegality and same deserves to be quashed. He submits that learned JMFC has rightly dismissed the application filed by the respondent herein considering the relevant documents. The respondent has failed to produce sufficient evidence in support of his case. The petitioner has produced about 20 documents along with his statement given before the police station and after perusing the same, learned JMFC has passed the order. The learned ASJ committed grave error of law holding that proceeding of police is not proper on account of non-registration of FIR whereas the ASJ failed to appreciate that the respondent himself submitted the application before the police for inquiry and thereafter registration of case against the petitioner but he has not participated in the inquiry and when he appeared, not produced any documents in support of his application. It is also argued by the counsel that it is clearly evident that the application filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the JMFC is baseless, false and concocted, just to create pressure.

Against the dismissal of private complaint by the JMFC, the remedy lies leave to appeal only but considering the revision petition, the Revisional Court exceeding its jurisdiction. The order passed by the learned ASJ is based on technicality over looking the merit of the case, therefore, same is not sustainable in the eye of law. With the aforesaid, he prays for allowing the said petition.

6. On the other han