IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 38 of 2007 Rajani Kant Uniyal. ………. Revisionist. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ....…. Respondents Present : Sri Karan Anand, Advocate for the revisionist. Sri Arvind Vashisht, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. With Criminal Revision No. 91 of 2007 Prem Chand Saini. ………. Revisionist. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ....…. Respondents Present : Sri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the revisionist. Sri Arvind Vashisht, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. As both these revisions, titled above, arise out of same judgment and order dated 15.02.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun while adjudicating the criminal revisions no. 18 of 2007 and 19 of 2007, hence, both these revisions are being disposed of by this single judgment. 2. Having heard learned counsel for all the parties, it transpires that initially Prem Chand Saini was the owner in possession of two pieces of land, bearing Khasra No. 119 and 112/2. Both were adjoining in village Uddiwala, Karanpur, District Dehradun. Bishan Singh Rawat is a senior practicing 2 advocate in Commercial Tax matters at Dehradun while Balkrashan Singh Rawat (private respondent) is his father. 3. Way back almost 30 years ago, Bishan Singh Rawat got a sale deed executed for a part of land admeasuring 0.11 acres from Khasra No. 119 from Prem Chand Saini and for rest of the land of Khasra No. 119, he got executed an agreement with Prem Chand Saini that the land will be sold in fragments at his instance. 4. This way, Bishan Singh Rawat became a mediator for making out sale of rest of the land in Khasra No. 119. Bishan Singh Rawat, accordingly, sold lands to many persons including Disha Associates. It appears that this land changed hands of so many persons and ultimately a portion of land was purchased by Rajani Kant Uniyal and his wife. It is alleged that Bishan Singh Rawat while initiating the execution of sale deed to Rajani Kant Uniyal transgressed the boundary of the land, which was strictly stated in the agreement executed between Bishan Singh Rawat and Prem Chand Saini, consequently, dispute arose between parties. Either of the parties i.e. Bishan Singh Rawat, on the one hand and Rajani Kant Uniyal, on the other hand, filed civil suit in the court of competent jurisdiction against each other and those suits still await adjudication. 5. On the other hand, one complaint no. 246 of 2003 was filed by Prem Chand Saini against Bishan Singh Rawat on dated 27.01.2003 and the learned Magistrate, after recording the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and perusing the other relevant evidence produced before him, took cognizance of the matter on dated 12.03.2003 and asked Bishan Singh Rawat to stand trial for offence under section 420, 447 IPC. Yet another complaint no. 871 of 2006 was filed by Rajani Kant Uniyal on 3 dated 24.04.2006 against Bishan Singh Rawat and Balkrashan Singh Rawat wherein cognizance was taken by the Magistrate, after recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 120B, 420, 467, 468 IPC. Both these orders of cognizance were challenged by Bishan Singh Rawat and Balkrashan Singh Rawat by way of revisions no. 18 of 2007 and 19 of 2007 before court of Sessions Judge, who passed the impugned order dated 15.02.2007. Learned Sessions Judge accepted both the revisions and set aside the orders of cognizance in both the complaints. It is this order of learned Sessions Judge, which is under challenge by way of these revisions titled above. 6. Learned counsel for Prem Chand Saini at the outset submitted that revision no. 19 of 2007 (filed against the order of cognizance dated 12.03.2003) was time barred. Attention of this Court was drawn regarding delay condonation application supported by an affidavit moved by Bishan Singh Rawat. In the application Bishan Singh Rawat has disclosed the ground for condonation of delay that order of cognizance dated 12.03.2003 was came in his notice in the year 2006, after receiving the summon in complaint case no. 246 of 2003 filed by Prem Chand Saini. It was argued that no date was mentioned to qualify the year 2006 while in the delay condonation application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, day-to- day explanation for clarifying the delay is sine qua non. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for Bishan Singh Rawat has drawn attention of this Court towards the opening paragraph of the impugned order, which reflects that the revisions no. 18 of 2007 and 19 of 2007 were permitted to be disposed of by learned counsel for both the parties arguing before the Sessions Judge. The language of this paragraph 4 indicates that the consent of learned counsel for Prem Chand Saini was implied in permitting the court to hear the matter on merits without raising a single plea to oppose the revision on the ground of delay. So this way, contention of the learned counsel for Prem Chand Saini that revision was time barred, is not tenable at all. 8. Much pros and cons have been advanced by learned counsel for both the revisionists as well as learned counsel for Bishan Singh Rawat. This court does not understand it necessary to mention all the authorities relied upon by them, as it will burden this judgment unnecessarily. 9. Well founded proposition of law in this regard is that pendency of civil litigation by itself is not a ground for barring the launching of the criminal prosecution but it is also not always necessary that in every civil litigation there would be necessarily be an element of the criminal liability in the transactions of the sell and purchase. It is also well accepted cardinal principle that buyer should be ware at the time of making purchase, passing consideration and verifying the genuineness of the subject matter of sale. All told, present dispute is sheer, at best, execution of sale deed, after transgressing the boundaries of land of Khasra No. 119 and executing the sale deed taking some area of Khasra No. 112/2. 10. It was incumbent upon the vendees with the aid and assistance of the revenue officials to get them verified from the contents of the sale deed to the spot. There appears to be no cheating as envisaged under section 420 IPC and criminal trespass as envisaged under section 447 IPC, so no interference is warranted in the impugned order. Both the revisions have 5 no force and are liable to be dismissed with lock, stock and barrel. Accordingly, both the revisions are dismissed. 11. Let the lower court record be sent back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 12.10.2011 SKS