Criminal Revision No. 2098 of 2005 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 2098 of 2005 Date of Decision: 18.2.2010 Bishamber Dayal …Petitioner Versus Murlidhar …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Jasbir Singh, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Smt. Keshri Devi filed a complaint against Bishamber Dayal, Ramesh, Mani Ram, Dharam Dev, Satbir, Murli Ram, and Yaspal under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. In the complaint case, she stated that she was co-sharer in the property mentioned in para 1 of the complaint. Bishamber Dayal, accused No.1, due to cordial relations, obtained her thumb impressions on blank papers. It was later learnt that by playing a fraud upon the complainant, he prepared a false General Power of Attorney. Thereafter, Bishamber Dayal, on 16.12.1992, sold the property of Smt. Keshri Devi to accused Nos.2 to 7 by way of different sale deeds and received consideration of sale proceeds. The sale proceed amounted to Criminal Revision No. 2098 of 2005 2 Rs.3,45,000/-. Bishamber Dayal had not accounted for the sale proceeds. Smt. Keshri Devi expired in the year 1995. After filing of the complaint, Murlidhar was impleaded as her legal representative to prosecute the complaint. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul, came to conclusion that no offence is made out and had dismissed the complaint. A revision petition was filed. The Sessions Judge, Narnaul came to conclusion that since sale proceeds had not been accounted for, offence under Section 406 IPC is made out against Bishamber Dayal alone. Aggrieved against this, Bishamber Dayal has filed the present revision petition. Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has stated that revisional powers are exercised by the Sessions Court under Sections 397 Cr.P.C. and under Section 398 Cr.P.C., only matter can be remanded back for further inquiry into the complaint in case complaint has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate, appearing for the respondent, has no objection in case the matter is remanded back to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul. A perusal of order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class reveals that he has not taken into consideration that sale proceeds received by Bishamber Dayal as attorney had not been accounted for. In view of the broad consensus arrived between the parties, order dated 17.8.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Narnaul, and order dated 5.5.2004, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul, are set Criminal Revision No. 2098 of 2005 3 aside. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul, is directed to apply mind afresh and pass order in accordance with the provisions of law. The petitioner and respondent/complainant shall appear before the trial Court on 31.3.2010. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 18, 2010 “DK”