Allahabad High Court
Rayeesh Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 1 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 93 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2720 of 2013 Revisionist :- Rayeesh Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Tripathi B.G. Bhai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Balwant Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State. However, Sri Balwant Singh, learned counsel for the opposite side is not present despite service of notice.
2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 19.07.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.220 of 2013, whereby the application moved under section- 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the revisionist came to be dismissed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddhartha Nagar.
3. The relevant facts as emerging from the record are as below:-
The revisionist moved an application under section- 156(3) Cr.P.C. against four persons namely Nayyar Kamal, Smt. Tahir, Patwaari Sahani and Girish Kumar with the allegations that his wife bought a plot no.205A by registered sale deed dated 18.06.2010 after paying the purchase money; after the sale deed the sellers were left with no share in the disputed plot, but on 27.12.2012 the accused persons got another sale deed executed by the applicant's wife of certain portion thereof in favour of Smt. Tahira; in that subsequent sale deed, Patwaari Sahani and Girish Kumar stood as marginal witness; the learned trial court heard the applicant and considered the facts and circumstances of the case including the two sale deeds and drew a conclusion that the sale deeds depicted different boundaries of the land sold through it; finding no substance, the application came to be dismissed.
4. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the subsequent sale deed was executed to cheat him and to derive illegal benefit; when the court put a query that what kind of deception has been practiced upon him/his wife and where lies the real dispute, the counsel for the revisionist was unable to give any logical answer. It is not clear from the application on record that how prima-facie an offence under sections- 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. is constituted.
5. I do not find any substance in the revision, hence it is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.5.2023 Saif