other co-accused –Dulari Devi of which sale deed, the petitioner no.1 is the deed writer and the petitioner no.2 is a witness. It is also undisputed that though the sale deed was executed in the year, 1987, the complaint case was filed initially in the year, 2014 which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Gumla (Town) P.S. Case No. 275 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2413 of 2014 was registered but police after investigation of the case submitted final form saying that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and did not send up the petitioners for trial and thereafter the complainant filed a protest petition being C.P. Case No. 436 of 2015 and the learned Magistrate dismissed the same under Section 203 Cr.P.C. but inadvertently it failed to mention that apart from the complaint and the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant, there were also two witnesses examined by the complainant, hence Criminal Revision No. 103 of 2017 was filed by the complainant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge –III, Giridih and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Giridih vide its order dated 16.11.2019 set aside the order dated 30.05.2017, passed by the learned Magistrate with a direction to pass a fresh order but the learned Magistrate in its fresh order dated 26.08.2022 has failed to specify as to how, the sale deed dated 24.04.1987 which has undisputedly been executed in respect of Khata No. 82 Plot No. 435 over which the complainant has no claim and of which the co-accused –Mobin Ansari alone claims to be the owner is a forged document.
