AFR

Court No. - 86

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21400 of 2022

Applicant :- Afsari Akbar Qayyum And 2 Others

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Ambreen Masroor,Sr. Advocate

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for

the State-respondent and perused the record.

2. By instituting the instant application, a prayer has been made

for quashing of the order dated 18.06.2022 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Moradabad in

Criminal Revision No.94 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime

No.1378 of 2017, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC,

Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Moradabad, which is

pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Moradabad.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that, one of the owner of the

property Smt. Ram Kali Devi sold out her half of the portion

from the land in question to the three persons namely, Vineet

Kishore Jain, Sitaram and Shiv Autar Agarwal vide registered

sale deed dated 15.03.1990 and out of sale consideration

amounting Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.20,000/- was paid at the time of

execution of sale deed and remaining amount of Rs.1,30,000/-

was agreed to be paid and later on the same was also paid. After

receiving the entire sale consideration, Smt. Ram Kali Devi

challenged the said sale deed by way of filing a Original Suit

No.348 of 1991. Thereafter, written statement was filed on

13.08.1991. The suit was decreed on 13.03.2015, in favour of

vendor. Further, another petition was filed by the applicants

under Article 227 bearing No.5000 of 2018, which was

dismissed by this Court on 18^th July, 2018. The vendee, Vineet

Kishore Jain filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of

C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated

13.03.2015 and the aforesaid application was allowed and the

ex parte judgment was recalled vide order dated 09.01.2022. He

submits that an FIR was lodged on 30.11.2017 by one Sunita

Singhal, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC against the

present applicants as the applicants claimed their right in

property in question on the basis of "Hibanama". The matter

was investigated by the police and charge sheet was filed and

thereafter cognizance was taken by the court below. The

applicant filed an application under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C.

which was dismissed vide order dated 2.11.2020 by the Chief

Judicial Magistrate and fixed the date on 18.11.2020 for

framing of charges.

4. Being aggrieved with the order dated 2.11.2020, the

applicants filed, Revision No.94 of 2020 on 11.11.2020 in

which a prayer was made by the present applicants that there

are certain additional documents and evidence, which may be

permitted to file and the same may be taken on record for the

proper adjudication of the matter. The aforesaid revision was

rejected vide order dated 18.06.2022, by Additional Sessions

Judge, Court No. 2, Moradabad wherein the following findings

have been recorded, which are read as under:-

"

उपररक पपवधपनर सस सपष हरतप हह कक मपनननय उचच नयपयपलय कर

द o प o ससo

धपरप 401

—

कक उपधपरप

1

मस पदत शकक कप पयरग ससशन

नयपयपलय दपरप धपरप 399(1) द o प o ससo

कस अनतगरत तभन ककयप जप

सकतप हह जब अकभलसख ससशन नयपयपधनश नस सवसय मसगवपयप हर।"

5. The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants are

that, the Additional Sessions Judge can exercise all the powers

of Session Judge, given in Chapter XXX of the Cr.P.C. in

respect with any case transferred to him by general or special

order of the Sessions Judge.

6. He added that under the provision of Section 400 of Cr.P.C.,

it has specifically been mentioned that an Additional Sessions

Judge shall have and may exercise all the powers of a Sessions

Judge under this Chapter in respect of any case which may be

transferred to him by or under an