1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed to quash/set-aside the judgment and order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 1141 of 2021 (Mohammad Sharif Vs. Mohammad Mustafa).

3. The revisionist lodged complaint stating therein that he is the co-owner in land Aarazi Nos. 213, 214, 211, 216, 257, 36/2 situated in Razapur Dehmaafi Pargana and Tahsil Sadar, DistrictPrayagraj, in which he has right on 1/5 share. The revisionist went to Saudi Arab in the year 1986 and stayed there for almost 28 years and when he came back to his home in Allahabad, he came to know that the opposite party no. 2 has sold some portion of Aarazi No. 213 to his wife Smt. Zareena Bano by registered benama and has fraudulently occupied the share of the revisionist. He further alleged that on 09.02.2021 at about 11:00 AM, opposite parties entered in his home and has beaten him & also threatened him to kill. Thereafter, the revisionist and witnesses were examined under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., respectively.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The impugned order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the court below is illegal and without application of judicial mind.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the revisionist.

6. Considered the submissions raised by counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

7. On perusal of order challenged herein, prima facie, does not disclose any manifest error or otherwise, illegality, procedural or otherwise to interfere in criminal revision. Moreover, the judicial review in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not like an appeal. It is a supervisory jurisdiction which is exercised by the Court to correct the manifest error in the orders of sub-ordinate court but should not be exercised in a manner so as to turn the revisional court in a court of appeal.

8. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Allahabad by which the court below has rejected the compliant of the revisionist filed under Section 203 Cr.P.C., after considering that the complaint is concerned with the fraudulent selling of the parts of the property, which shall be decided by way of a civil suit as it is clear from the discussion and the matter is civil in nature. While deciding the matter, the court below has also discussed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Mitesh Kumar J.sha V/s State of Karnataka & Ors. (Crl. Appeal No. 1285 of 2021) and Randheer Singh V/s The State of U.P. & Ors (Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2021).

9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Allahabad, is just and proper and there is no error of law. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court.

10. The instant criminal revision is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, rejected.