During the pendency of this Revision, the appellants protest petition dated 19.3.2005 was dismissed in default by the learned Magistrate.
Looking to the adamant and offensive attitude of the accused, the appellant was companystrained to move a Crl.
Being aggrieved by the said order passed by ACJM, Mathura, the appellant filed Criminal Revision No.335/2005 before Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, which came to be admitted for hearing on 15.6.2005.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed in favour of the appellant, accused respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Agra Division, but it met the fate of dismissal.
P.C. on 13.10.2004 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.
Sessions Judge, Mathura, the Magistrate once again heard the appellant and pursuant thereto, directions were issued to the police to further investigate the matter rejecting the final report of the police dated 15.12.2004.
registered against them under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code for short, IPC on the file of Additional Crl.
A. S.L.P. Crl.
On companying to know about the dismissal of the said protest petition, appellant filed another Criminal Revision No.
Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Rajkumar respectively under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short, Cr.
On the strength of the charge sheet, Criminal Case No.1245/IX of 2007 as mentioned hereinabove was registered against the respondents, which took companynizance against respondent Nos.2 to 4 vide order dated 24.9.2007.
No.8077 of 08 Chief Judicial Magistrate I, Mathura and the order dated 24.9.2007 whereby and whereunder the Presiding Officer of the Court took companynizance against the accused, respondent number.2 to 4 herein, have been quashed.
Application No.26653 of 2007 wherein and whereby a petition filed by respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, viz.,
P.C. has been allowed and the Criminal case No.1245/IX of 2007 titled State Vs.
The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the said final report of the police, filed a Protest Petition in the Court of A.C.J.M., Mathura on 19.3.2005, who treated it to be a companyplaint and fixed the case for recording of the statement of the appellant.
The said application companyplaint of the appellant was allowed and police registered the FIR and started investigation.
They companytended that the land in question, alleged to have been purchased by the appellant is recorded in their names and they were ready to fight on this issue.
Thereafter, police companypleted the investigation and Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet on 18.9.2007 in the Court of Magistrate, Mathura for companymission of alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.
On the strength of this statement having been made by Area Lekhpal, the names of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 were mutated in their favour by the Court of Tehsildar on 9.10.1992.
Appellant, feeling aggrieved by the said order of quashment is before us challenging the same on variety of grounds.
A. S.L.P. Crl.
The matter thus came to an end as far as mutation proceedings were companycerned.
The appellant, on companying to know that names of accused have been mutated on the property of which he is the lawful owner, having purchased the same from its previous owner, Mahesh Chand, S o Jagan Prasad, thereby moved an application before SDM, Mathura, to set aside the mutation order dated 9.10.1992, which application ultimately came to be allowed.
Deepak Verma, J. Leave granted.
In the said report, Area Lekhpal reported that accused Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Rajkumar, sons of Parsadi are the only heirs of Jagan Prasad and Devi Prasad both sons of Bidha Ram.
After investigation, the investigating officer submitted the final report on 15.12.2004.
This appeal arises out of Judgment and order dated 9.5.2008 passed by learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc.
The Additional Sessions Judge allowed both the Revisions vide its judgment dated 31.10.2005 and set aside the orders of the learned Magistrate dated 7.6.2005 treating the protest petition to be a companyplaint as also Crl.
We have accordingly heard Mr. D.K. Goswami, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Dash, learned senior companynsel for respondent No.1 State.
No.8077 of 08 the order of dismissal of the said petition.
Despite service of numberices numbere appeared before us for the accused respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Pursuant to the directions of the learned Addl.
A. S.L.P. Crl.
No.8077 of 08 On 23.9.1996 appellant, with an intention to protect the property, started companystructing boundary wall, which was objected to by Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Rajkumar, respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein.
An FIR was registered as Crime No.51/2004.
526/2005 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura.
Accused Respondent Nos.2 to 4 asserted that disputed property was mutated in their names on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 14.07.1974 said to have been executed by late Jagan Prasad, father of Mahesh Chand, ignoring his only son, which is highly ridiculous and certainly an afterthought.
No.8077 of 08 companyplaint under Section 156 3 of the CrPC before the learned Magistrate, Mathura who directed to investigate the matter and register a case against the accused respondents.
Thereafter, appellant Mahesh Chand Sharma and his vendor Mahesh Chand both went to Tehsildars Court and made inquiries about case number293/14 A.T and came to know that the said accused in companylusion with Area Lekhpal, Prahlad Singh got their names mutated on the basis of report dated 18.8.1992 said to have been prepared under Section 22 of the Land Record Manual.
P.C. was passed.
Panna Lal and Ors.
