Allegations of fraud and conspiracy in property disputes necessitate criminal investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., overriding civil character claims.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present C482 application, the applicants have put to challenge the impugned order dated 20.06.2022 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Revision No.23 of 2022 Niranjan Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, whereby, the said revision of revisionist (respondent No.2 herein) was allowed by rejecting the dismissal order dated 21.01.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Jasput, District Udham Singh Nagar in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.04 of 2022 Niranjan Singh Vs. Hemant Kumar Sain and others, whereby, the application filed by applicant-Niranjan Singh (respondent No.2 herein) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

3. The facts in nutshell are that the respondent No.2 moved an application under 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar with the allegations that on 11.12.2021, when he was executing the work of plinth over his plot situated at Village Kunda, Tehsil Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar, one-Sher Singh got stopped the said work and on 13.12.2021, when he through his advocate made inspection of record about the said land, he came to know that the opposite parties by way of forgery have tried to grab his property. It is alleged by respondent No.2 that he had purchased the land measuring 83.64 Sq.Mt. of Khasra No.207 from Manoj Gupta vide registered sale deed dated 04.12.2020 and since then he is in possession of the said plot. It is alleged that on 14.12.2021 at about 10.00 A.M., when the respondent No.2 was carrying out work of plinth over his plots, applicants reached at the spot and started to abuse and manhandle him; his son and grandson saved him and when his son asked the applicants about the forgery done by them, they also abused his son.

4. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 approached the police authorities to lodge his complaint, but when they turned a blind eye, he approach to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating therein all the offensive activity of the applicants with a prayer to lodge the first information report against applicants. Thereafter, learned Magistrate vide order dated 21.01.2022 in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.04 of 2022, has dismissed the said application of the applicant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. with the finding that the dispute between the parties is of civil in nature and prima-facie no offence is made out against the applicants. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2022, respondent No.2 preferred a Criminal Revision No. 23 of 2022, before the Court of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Learned Revisional Court has allowed the said criminal revision vide order dated 20.06.2022 by setting aside the order dated 21.01.2022 and remanded the matter to learned Magistrate for passing fresh order in view of findings recorded in the Revisional order. Hence, the applicants are before this Court challenging the impugned order passed by learned Revisional Court.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted the impugned order passed by the learned Revisional Court is wholly illegal and based on surmises and conjectures. He further submits that learned Revisional court while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that the entire dispute between the parties is purely of civil in nature which has illegally been given a criminal colour. He also submits that the respondent No.2 has falsely implicated the applicants.

6. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents submit that learned Revisional Court has rightly held that the case falls in the criminal category and rightly passed the impugned order on the basis of evidence available on record. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the Revisional Court vide order dated 20.06.202