JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 2. By means of this instant criminal revision instituted u/s 397/401 Cr.P.C., the revisionist has assailed the impugned judgement and order dated 02.08.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Basi, Siddharth Nagar in Complaint Case No. 258 of 2005 u/s 245 Cr.P.C. (Tulsi Ram Vs. Indramati and others). 3. By the impugned judgement and order, the trial court has allowed the discharge application filed by the accused u/s 245 Cr.P.C. 4. Averment has been made by learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial court has discharged the accused vide impugned judgement and order without considering the evidence on record. It has been next submitted that complainant had examined the witnesses u/s 244 Cr.P.C. and produced the documentary evidence. There was sufficient reason to frame charge against the accused u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. but the trial court without applying its judicial mind to the evidence on record has illegally discharged the accused u/s 245 Cr.P.C. It has also been submitted that the trial court by the impugned judgement and order, discharged the accused of the offence u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. on the ground that case u/s 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act was allowed in favour of the accused and the same is sub-judice before the S.O.C. whereas the judgement of the Consolidation Court has no impact on the criminal proceedings. From the evidence produced by the complainant, prima facie offence u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. is made out against the accused, namely, Indramati wife of Phool Ram, Krishna Ram and Krishna Mohan, sons of Ram Ujagir, and Sabhapati Shukla son of Vansh Raj. Therefore, it is requested that the impugned judgement and order be set-aside and the trial court be directed to proceed against the accused after framing of charge against them. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, Krishna Mohan and Sabhapati, has submitted that the trial court vide order dated 13.04.2011 had illegally summoned them u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. for trial whereas there is no evidence against them. It has also been submitted that the opposite party nos. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, Krishna Mohan and Sabhapati, has submitted that the trial court vide order dated 13.04.2011 had illegally summoned them u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. for trial whereas there is no evidence against them. It has also been submitted that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are merely the marginal witnesses and writer of the will deed respectively. The main accused, Indramati and Krishna Ram have died. The trial court vide order dated 02.08.2022 has rightly and legally allowed the application u/s 245 (2) Cr.P.C. and discharged opposite party nos. 2 and 3 of the charge. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and there is no ground to interfere with the same. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been heard. Perused the entire evidence present on the revision and the impugned order passed by the revisional court. 7. The complainant Tulsi Ram alleging that Ram Ujagir had four sons, namely, Tulsi Ram (complainant), Krishna Ram, Krishna Mohan and Phool Ram. Phool Ram had died earlier and his wife Indramati and son Vashistha were his legal heirs. After death of Ram Ujagir, his four legal heirs, Tulsi Ram, Krishna Ram, Krishna Mohan and Vashistha each inherited 1/4-1/4 part of his property through succession. The father of the complainant, Ram Ujagir had in his lifetime executed sale deed of 1/4th of his agricultural land, namely, plot no. 107 situated in village- Vakainiya in the year 1985 in the favour of Mohd. Hanif and remaining 3/4th in favour of Krishna Mohan, Krishna Ram and Vashistha. In the year 1988, Krishna Ram and Vashistha executed sale deed of their share of land in favour of Sai Mohammed etc. Krishna Mohan and Vashistha executed sale deed of 1/5th of plot no. 109 (Gata No. 179/0.205 aer) in village- Mahua in favour of Om Prakash Pandey on 12.08.1999. On 07.07.1999, Krishna Mohan, Krishna Ram and Vashistha executed their share of land in plot nos. 142 and 113 in favour of Dal Singar, resident of village- Mahua. Vashistha executed sale deed of his share in six plots area 1/4th of 2.347 aer and 1/2 of plot no. 4 min jumla and plot no. On 07.07.1999, Krishna Mohan, Krishna Ram and Vashistha executed their share of land in plot nos. 142 and 113 in favour of Dal Singar, resident of village- Mahua. Vashistha executed sale deed of his share in six plots area 1/4th of 2.347 aer and 1/2 of plot no. 4 min jumla and plot no. 206 min jumla 2 bighas 17 biswa and 13½ dhoor in favour of complaint Tulsi Ram on 16.10.1999. Mutation has been done in favour of the revisionist. The accused Indramati, wife of Phool Ram, with fraudulent intention prepared a forged unregistered will dated 15.01.1995 of Ram Ujagir. Accused, Indramati wife of Phool Ram in order to deceive the complainant, Tulsi Ram, fraudulently executed a forged unregistered will dated 15.01.1995 with forged signature of Ram Ujagir. In the aforesaid will, Krishna Mohan and Krishna Ram (since deceased) are the marginal witnesses and opposite party no. 3, Sabhapati Shukla, is the writer of the sale deed. The complainant had given information about the alleged offence to concerned police station but no action was taken. Then, he sent his application to Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar by registered post. On the basis of complaint of Tulsi Ram and his statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and other documentary evidence on record, the trial court vide order dated 13.04.2011 summoned accused Indramati, Krishna Mohan and Sabhapati for trial u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. The complainant, Tulsi Ram had filed information received under R.T.I. Act to the effect that the Case No. 36/41/20, Indramati Vs. Ram Ujagir relating to village- Mahua, Tappa Khesraha, Pargana and Tehsil- Bansi, Siddharth Nagar, is pending. 8. The trial court has given following reasons for allowing the discharge application of opposite party nos. Ram Ujagir relating to village- Mahua, Tappa Khesraha, Pargana and Tehsil- Bansi, Siddharth Nagar, is pending. 8. The trial court has given following reasons for allowing the discharge application of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 :- bl ifjokn ds lEcU/k esa Fkkuk [ksljgk dh vk[;k layXu i=koyh gS] ftles rqylhjke ik.Ms;] bUnzerh ds uke ls QthZ olh;r dh tkWp ds lEcU/k esa ,d okn MhŒMhŒ pdcUnh U;k;ky; fl)kFkZuxj es olh;rukek fujLrhdj.k dk eqdnek fd;k gSA ftlesa U;k;ky; }kjk mDr olh;rukek dks fof/k iw.kZ ekuk x;k gS] ftlds fo:) ifjoknh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn es ;kfpdk nkf[ky fd;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dks iqu% nks”k ds vk/kkj ij eqdnek dks fuLrkfjr fd;s tkus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;kA ftlds vuqikyu es pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ckalh us fnukad 13@1@20 dks ;g fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k fd rqylhjke }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i=@vkifRr fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj xzke egqvk] rIik& [ksljgk ij ijxuk ckalh] rglhy ckalh ftyk fl)kFkZuxj dks tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i=&23 Hkkx 1 ds pd la[;k& 104] 105] 106] 109] 111] 112] 113] 114] 119 o 127 ls jkemtkfxj iq= jkevpy dk uke [kkfjt gksdj olh;rukek fnukafdr 15@1@95 ds vk/kkj ij bUnzerh csok Qwyjke] d`".kjke] d`".keksgu] rqylhjke iq=x.k jkemtkfxj dk uke ntZ gksA mijksDr vkns'k xq.k nks"k ij fo'ys"k.k djus ds mijkUr ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA vr% bl ij lUnsg ugh fd;k tk ldrk gSA blds iwoZ rglhynkj ckalh }kjk fnukad 15-02-2000 dks mDr olh;rukek ds vk/kkj ij cjklr dk vkns'k fd;k x;k gSA ifjoknh /kkjk 244 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds vUrxZr ijhf{kr lk{khx.k vfuy dqekj dk c;ku djk;k x;k gS] blds vfjfjDr fdlh vU; LorU= xokg ,oa vU; vfHkys[kh; lk{; mDr olh;rukek dks QthZ lkfcr djus ds fy;s nkf[ky ugh fd;k x;k gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkostks ds ifj'khyu ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd iz'uxr olh;rukek ,d izekf.kr bLrkost gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDrk@va'k/kkjdks dk LoRo }kjk fgLlk izkIr gks pqdk gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr es vfHk;qDrk dks mUeksfpr fd;s tkus dk vk/kkj gSA pw¡fd vfHk;qDrx.k 1 rk 2 dh e`R;q igys gks pqdh gSA vr% vfHk;qDr.k la[;k 3 o 4 dks /kkjk 419] 420] 467] 468] 471 HkkŒnŒlaŒ ds vkjksi ls voeqDr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 9. In paragraph no. 20 of the judgement in Amit Kapoor Vs. In paragraph no. 20 of the judgement in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, (2012) 9 SCC 460 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has compared the power and extent of jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 397 Cr.P.C. which is given hereunder : 20. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the expression “prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”, the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section 482 is based upon the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest i.e. when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The section confers very wide power on the Court to do justice and to ensure that the process of the court is not permitted to be abused. 10. After comprehensive survey and discussion of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the factors to be considered by the trial court while disposing of application u/s 227 Cr.P.C. and framing charge u/s 228 Cr.P.C., the Apex Court in Amit Kapoor (supra) has given following directions : 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction. 27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained. 27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution. 11. From the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding jurisdiction of criminal revision, it is clear that jurisdiction of revisional court is not wide and comprehensive as that of appellate court. In criminal revision, the revisional court cannot re-evaluate the factual aspect of the finding recorded by the trial court. The revisional court has only to see whether by passing the impugned order, the trial court has committed any illegality, irregularity, jurisdictional error or any impropriety. 12. From the perusal of the evidence available on the record of criminal revision, it transpires that the deceased testator, Ram Ujagir had 4 sons, namely, Tulsi Ram (complainant), Krishna Ram, Krishna Mohan and Phool Ram. 12. From the perusal of the evidence available on the record of criminal revision, it transpires that the deceased testator, Ram Ujagir had 4 sons, namely, Tulsi Ram (complainant), Krishna Ram, Krishna Mohan and Phool Ram. Phool Ram died earlier leaving behind his wife, Indramati and his son, Vashistha. By the disputed will dated 15.01.1995, Ram Ujagir gave 1/4th share of his property to Indramati who is widow of his deceased son Phool Ram. The revisionist, Tulsi Ram, Krishna Mohan, Krishna Ram and Indramati are the legal heirs of deceased Ram Ujagir. Only 1/4th share of the property of Ram Ujagir has been given to Indramati through the will. 13. It has been contended on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 that since Vashistha, son of deceased Phool Ram, is mentally retarded, therefore, Ram Ujagir by his will dated 15.01.1995 has given 1/4th share of his property in favour of Indramati, wife of Phool Ram. Mutation has been done by the Consolidation Officer in favour of the legatees in the revenue record on the basis of the will. The appeal filed against the aforesaid order of the court of Consolidation Officer has been dismissed. The complainant Tulsi Ram has filed a writ against the aforesaid order of the S.O.C. in the Allahabad High Court which has remitted the matter to the consolidation authorities for passing a fresh order after giving both parties opportunity of hearing and filing evidence. After remand of the case, the Consolidation Officer, Bansi has again passed order on the basis of the will dated 15.01.1995. The trial court has also mentioned in the impugned order that the revisionist has not filed any other documentary evidence. The complainant has filed u/s 244 Cr.P.C. oral evidence of himself as well as witness, Anil Kumar. From their evidence, no doubt is raised about the validity of the will. 14. From the evidence on record as well as perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the disputed will dated 15.01.1995 was assailed by the revisionist/complainant before consolidation authorities as well before the High Court but so far no adverse finding has been recorded against the will. Apart from this, the validity of the disputed will can be decided only by the civil court and so far it has not been declared invalid by the civil court. Apart from this, the validity of the disputed will can be decided only by the civil court and so far it has not been declared invalid by the civil court. It is well settled law that unless validity of a document is not assailed by a competent court, criminal proceeding on the basis of that document for forgery, cannot proceed. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case regarding continuance of criminal case before finding by competent court regarding validity of the disputed will, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, jurisdictional error or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the trial court. There is no merit in the criminal revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. 17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for necessary action.