Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3160 of 2018 Revisionist :- Saritendra Kumar Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Daga,Alok Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Kumar Pandey,Virendra Singh
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for private opposite parties, learned AGA.
Perusal of the record shows that the present revisionist is the informant of the case, who has lodged the FIR on 26.07.2016 at 13.00 hours, P.S. Sarai Inayat, District Allahabad, under sections 498-A. 308 and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, naming five persons as accused therein. After lodging of the FIR, the investigation of the case started rolling and eventually the police submitted charge sheet under the aforesaid sections. Thereafter learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 09.10.2017 under the aforesaid sections. Aggrieved by the aforesaid cognizance order, the accused persons preferred Criminal Revision No.
501 of 2017 whereby revisional court has set aside the aforesaid cognizance order vide order dated 31.07.2018 and remanded the case to the court concerned to decide the same afresh.
The instant revision has been preferred assailing the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the revisional court.
Learned counsel for the revisionist fortifying his arguments has cited principles enunciated in the case of State of Gujrat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde [(2014) 3 SCC page 659] passed by the Apex Court as well as the principles laid down in the case of Ashish Kumar and another v. State of U.P and another [2015 (9)ACC 14] for assailing the aforesaid order passed by the revisional court.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted the the aforesaid is barred by the aforesaid authorities.
This Court has gone through the entire record carefully and since the learned Revisional Court after setting aside the cognizance order dated 31.07.2018 has only remanded the matter to the court concerned to reconsider the matter, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter at this stage.
However, the court concerned, to whom the matter is remanded, is expected to adjudicate and decide the matter afresh strictly in accordance with law, relying upon the material, case diary and evidence collected by the concerned Investigation Officer, being uninfluenced by the observations made by the revisional court in its order impugned.
With the aforesaid observation, the application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., is hereby disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.1.2019 shailesh