Full Judgment
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.
1. By filing instant criminal revision petition the complainants petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 1.4.2008 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the revisional court') in criminal revision No. 44/2007, by which he allowed the criminal revision petition of the accused petitioners, quashed and set-aside the order of cognizance dated 12.1.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate S. No. 10, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') and directed the trial Court to decide the protest petition filed by the complainants petitioners after hearing both the parties.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Late Shri Gulla Ram filed a complaint against the accused respondents on 2.8.1999. The complainant was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C at P.S. Banipark, Jaipur.
3. On the basis of the complaint sent by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the police registered an FIR No. 93/99 for the offense under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120B(3) IPC.
4. The police after investigation, submitted final report in the Court.
5. The trial Court issued notice to the complainant. The trial Court recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
6. The trial Court after hearing, took cognizance against the accused respondents vide order dated 12.1.2007 for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by holding; the agreement and the power of attorney as forged documents.
7. The accused respondents being aggrieved with the order of cognizance dated 24.1.2007 passed by the trial Court preferred a criminal revision before the revisional Court.
8. The revisional Court after hearing both the parties, allowed the criminal revision filed by the accused respondents and quashed and set-aside the order of cognizance dated 24.1.2007 passed by the trial Court and directed the trial Court to decide the protest petition filed by the complainant petitioners after hearing both the parties, vide judgment dated 1.4.2008.
9. The complainant petitioners being aggrieved with the order impugned dated 1.4.2008 have preferred instant revision petition before this Court.
10. I have heard counsel appearing for both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record.
11. Mr. Hari Prasad Jangid appearing on behalf of Mr. A.N. Khan, counsel for the complainant petitioners submits that the revisional court has erred in not taking into consideration the order of the learned Magistrate dated 12.1.2007. The learned Magistrate dealt with each and every ground of final report and the trial Court has rightly passed order of cognizance against the accused petitioners. The revisional Court has wrongly directed the trial Court to decide the protest petition and pass order after hearing both the parties, as the trial Court has rightly took cognizance against the complainant petitioners.
12. Mr. DID. Sharma, Public prosecutor assisted by Mahesh Gupta, counsel for the accused respondents submit that the revisional Court has rightly passed the order impugned.
13. From the bare perusal of the facts of the case and the material available on record it is clear that the revisional court has rightly passed the order impugned and in my opinion no interference is required to be made in the impugned order passed by the revisional Court.
14. In the result, this criminal revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected. The registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the Court concerned immediately. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial expeditiously.