Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21843 Court No. - 16 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7784 of 2016 Applicant :- Ghanshyam Ojha And Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Maya Ram Yadav Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J. List has been revised. No one appears for opposite party No. 2. Learned A.G.A. representing the opposite party No. 1 is present. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 15.4.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Gonda in Complaint Case No. 1618 of 2014 summoning the applicants for trial under Section 420 I.P.C. and also to quash the order dated 26.9.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-II, Gonda. in Criminal Revision No. 435 of 2015 whereby the revisional court has affirmed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate. Opposite party No. 2 filed complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. pleading that the applicants had fraudulently got a sale-deed executed by one Ram Pyari whose plot was on the South of the plot of the applicants. It had been pleaded in the complaint that in the aforesaid sale-deed the plot purchased is described in a manner that it encroached on the plot of the opposite party No. 2. It has been further stated in the complaint that on the basis of the sale-deed, the applicants were interfering in the possession of the opposite party No. 2 over his plot. On the aforesaid plea, the opposite party No. 2 alleged that the applicants had committed an offence under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 506 I.P.C. The statement of the applicants was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of his witness was also recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The statements apparently supported the case of the opposite party No. 2 as taken in his complaint. The Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 15.4.2015 summoned the applicants for trial under Section 420 I.P.C. and as noted earlier the said order has been affirmed by the revisional court through its order dated 26.9.2016. It is apparent that the sale-deed was not executed by the opposite party No. 2 but by Ram Pyari. Even, if the applicants got the sale-deed executed after cheating Ram Pyari, the offence was committed against Ram Pyari and not the opposite party No. 2, i.e., the complainant. The correctness of the area of the plot and its location as shown in the sale-deed executed by Ram Pyari and the legal capacity of Ram Pyari to execute the sale-deed is a dispute of civil nature. A reading of the orders passed by the courts below does not show that the aforesaid factors have been considered by the courts below. No offence has been committed against the opposite party No. 2. Considering the aforesaid facts and also the fact that the dispute is of civil nature, for which the opposite party No. 2 has a remedy before the civil court, the orders dated 15.4.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Gonda in Complaint Case No. 1618 of 2014 and 26.9.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-II, Gonda. in Criminal Revision No. 435 of 2015 are contrary to law and are hereby set aside. The application is allowed. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Anurag/- Digitally signed by :- ANURAG KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench