further allegation that on different dates respondent no.2 received Rs.5,00,000/- from the appellant and out of Rs. 5,00,000/- only Rs. 3,50,000/- were paid to the respondent no.3 whose land was offered to be sold to the appellant/ her husband and Rs. 1,50,000/are said to have been kept by respondent no.2- Chandrakesh Bhardwaj by making fraud with the appellant. Regarding sale of the property in favour of appellant document appended at page-33 of the paper book is said to have executed by the respondent no.3 with the connivance of respondent no.2. This document is said to be a sale deed written at the office of Sub Registrar First, Meerut, but going through this document it can be very well said that it is an unregistered document, wherein signatures of any witness have not been taken, nor it has been placed before the registrar, nor it has been registered. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 that the property can be transferred under the Transfer of Property Act without registration does not inspire the confidence of the Court. Any property which is of more than hundred rupees of value needs compulsory registration under the Registration Act. So far as the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 03.06.2023 supplied to the Court by the learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 is concerned, it is an application regarding incident dated 08.03.2023, which is nothing to do with the present application. So far as the impugned order is concerned, vide this order application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the appellant was rejected by the trial court on the sole ground that in her first application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was dismissed in default on 03.01.2023 there was no allegation of rape. The first application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is appended at page-40 of the paper book is before the Court, wherein in paragraph-3 it is clear allegation that the appellant was hurled caste based abuses and she was physically exploited against her wishes by the respondent nos.2 and 3, thus, the ground given for rejection of the application of the appellant by the Special Judge SC/ST is against the evidence on record.
