Mohammd Anas Khan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material placed on record.

¶12

The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 30.6.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Room No. 3rd/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, in Complaint Case No. 224 of 2024 (Pratap Ravi Sharma Vs. Mohammad Anas Khan and another) whereby the charges have been framed against the revisionists, under Sections 406 & 506 IPC after the rejection of the discharge application dated 17.5.2025.

¶13

Brief genesis of the case is that Pratap Ravi Sharma/opposite party no. 2 had aggrieved to purchase the arazi land of Village Amanpur Keshupur, Arazi No. 245, 246, out of which, the complainant has agreed to purchase 700 yards of land to the tune of Rs. 30 lacs in the name of two sons, namely, Akshay Dixit and Arshit Dixit and out of which Rs. 18 lacs by R.T.G.S. to the joint account of the revisionists and Rs. 6 lacs were given in cash to the revisionists in presence of Ajay Raj Sharma and the remaining amount of Rs. 6 lacs was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. Later on, the revisionists failed to execute the sale deed and as such an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed. The said application was treated as complaint and after recording the statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and Section 202 Cr.P.C., the revisionists were summoned on 8.7.2022. The revisionists were allowed on bail vide order dated 15.12.2022 by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Bareilly. The said summoning order dated 8.4.2022 was challenged by way of Application u/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 22770 of 2022 (Mohammad Anas Khan and another Vs. State of U.P. and another, which was dismissed by this Court by a detailed order vide dated 29.9.2022 wherein it was observed that this Court does not deem it proper and, therefore, cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they

¶14

CRLR No. 4441 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

emerged from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reasons, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the FIR. And the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the summoning order of the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

¶17

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists have a registered agreement to sale dated 12.10.2020 duly executed by Mallu Khan. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no. 2 alleging therein that the revisionists had failed to execute the sale-deed in favour of opposite party no. 2, which is a false averment in complaint case whereas the revisionists are having power of attorney in their favour through Mallu Khan and the revisionists after taking the money had got executed the sale-deed on 4.3.2021 in favour of Akshay Dixit and Arshit Dixit, who are the sons of Pratap Ravi Sharma/opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid facts an oral compromise was arrived at in between the parties and it was agreed that the opposite party no. 2 will return back the disputed plot to the revisionists and in pursuance of the said compromise dated 10.10.2022, the revisionists had paid Rs. 3,80,000/- by cash to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 3 lacs through RTGS by revisionist no. 2. It is next submitted that the application was filed on the basis of incorrect facts and the impugned order dated 17.5.2022 as well as the charge framed dated 30.6.2025 be set aside and the criminal revision may be allowed.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 has contended that there are specific allegations on the revisionists. The learned trial court has registered the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint. After recording the statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C. & Section 202 Cr.P.C. and after considering of the relevant facts and evidences, the summons were issued. Thereafter the summoning order was challenged by the revisionists before this Hon'ble Court by way of Application u/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 22770 of 2022 which was dismissed vide order dated 29.9.2022. Thereafter the discharge application has been filed by the revisionists which has rightly been rejected by the learned trial court. Thereafter the charge has been framed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, court No. 3, Bareilly on 30.6.2025. It is further contended that the charge has already been framed, hence the criminal revision in view of the facts and reasons and law, is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

It is undisputed fact that the financial transaction took place in the accounts of the revisionists. The reasons are different as mentioned by the revisionists which has to be decided at the stage of trial and no finding on fact could be given by this Court at the stage of criminal revision. This Court has also refused to quash the summoning order in the application u/S 482

¶20

CRLR No. 4441 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

Cr.P.c. as mentioned hereinabove. The application of the discharge has already been rejected and the charges are framed by the learned trial court.

¶23

It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. Vs. Central Beureau of Investigation (2018)16 SCC 299 that interference in the order framing charges or refusing discharge is called for a rarest of rare can only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction.

¶24

There is no apparent or patent error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. The order framing charge is an interlocutory order and no lis or point in dispute has been finally adjudicated by the learned trial court. Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. provides that the powers of revision conferred by sub section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceeding.

¶25

There is neither any apparent or patent illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.

¶26

In view of the facts, reasons and provisions of the law mentioned hereinabove, the criminal revision is having no force and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed, accordingly.

¶27

November 18, 2025 M. Tarik

¶28

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammd Anas Khan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammd Anas Khan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mangal Dev vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Santosh Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jitendra Alias Shankar vs State of U.P. and Another

Himanshu Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ishwar Devi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others