S.J.Hyder, J. - (1.)THIS is an application filed by the complainant against the order of the Munsif Magistrate dated 31-8-78. By means of the said order, the Trial court purporting to exercise its powers under section 245 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure dismissed the complaint of the applicant and discharged the accused in the case who are now opposite parties before this Court.
(2.)THE applicant has a brother named Rajjan who lives at Bombay. A suit had been filed by Rajjan against Ganesh Dutt Pathak for the recovery of certain sum on the basis of a pronote dated 19-10-1969 in the city civil court at Bombay. THE said suit was decreed ex-parte on 3-8-1972. THE plaintiff in the said suit was held entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 11,000/- from Ganesh Dutt Pathak.
The decree of the trial court was transferred for execution to the Civil Judge, Gyanpur. He ordered the attachment of properties of Ganesh Dutt Pathak and the said propery was attached on February 22, 1973. Ganesh Dutt Pathak made an application in the city civil court, Bombay for setting aside the exparte decree. Along with that application he filed a certified copy of a compromise allegedly arrived at between him and another person on 19-10-69 in a criminal case under sec. 323 pending in the court of the Nyaya Panchayat, Prithivipur in the district of Jaunpur. The case was decided by the Nyaya Panchayat on the basis of the said compromise. The certified copy of the compromise was filed by Ganesh Dutt Pathak in order to show that the pronote which was the basis of the suit before the city civil court, Bombay was a fictitious document as it also purported to have been executed on 19-10-1969.

The exparte decree was set aside by the city civil court and the civil suit is still said to be pending before the said court.

(3.)THE applicant Jai Narain Pathak then moved a number of applications before the district authorities at Jaunpur complaining that actually there was no complaint which was pending before the Nyaya Panchayat in the year 1969, and that the entire proceedings culminating in the compromise dated 19-10-1969 have been fabricated by the complainant in collusion with the members of the Nyaya Panchayat. One of such application was referred for decision to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur. He rejected the said application by his order dt. 25-4-1975. THE complainant preferred a revision against the said order which was dismissed for non prosecution.
Thereupon the complainant applicant filed the present complaint in the court of the Judicial Magistrate against the ten opposite parties including the persons who were members of the Nyaya Panchayat in the year 1969. In the complaint it was again averred that no criminal case was filed before the Nyaya Panchayat, Prithvipur in the year 1969. The records showing that any such case was filed and decided had been forged and fabricated by opposite party no. 1 who had entered into a criminal conspiracy with opposite parties nos. 2 to 10, who had assisted opposite party no. 1 and had actually participa- ted in fabricating the said documents and the compromise dated 19-10-1969, with a view to defeat the claim of his brother Rajjan pending in the city civil court, Bombay. In para 13 of the complaint it was specifically stated that a certified copy of the compromise which had been filed in the city civil court, Bombay was a forged and fabricated document and had been brought in existence for the object given above. On the basis of these allegations, the applicant claimed that opposite parties nos. 1 to 10 may be punished for the offences referred to in sections 120-B, 465, 466, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.