Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned order.
By means of this criminal revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No. 4, Basti, whereby the Criminal Revision No. 385 of 2008 preferred by Smt. Ruksana opposite party no. 2 against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Basti whereby the application filed by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was rejected and the matter has been remitted back to the trial for fresh decision in accordance with law.
After having heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the impugned order, I am of the view that the order passed by the court below is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons. The impugned order being an order of remand is an interlocutory order and hence not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 (1) Cr.P.C. in view of the bar contained in Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C..
Learned counsel for the revisionist has failed to demonstrate that the impugned order suffera from any illegality or infirmity warranting any interference by this Court.
This application in revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.1.2010 YK