Decided on January 31,2012

State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents


- (1.) Having heard urgency application No. 583 of 2012, it is allowed for the reasons stated therein. Heard Mr. Siddharth Singh, learned counsel of the applicant as well as Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.
(2.) It appears that the applicant/petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 are here relatives to each other and Smt. Kamla Devi, respondent No. 2 filed a criminal complaint way back in 1997. The incident was of 25.8.1997 and the order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate was of 18.9.1997. That order of cognizance was challenged before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and the operation of the same was stayed. It has been contended on behalf of the learned counsel of the applicant that before arrival of the stay order passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court the complaint was got deliberately dismissed by the complainant, so the order passed by the Allahabad High Court automatically become infructuous. It has been contended that Smt. Kamla Devi has filed a second complaint on 3.12.1997 with the same facts but the learned Magistrate refused to pass any cognizance order. The order of refusal passed by the learned Magistrate was challenged by way of a revision by the complainant and the revisional court having heard the same directed the learned Magistrate to pass an appropriate orders after considering the evidence led by the complainant. The matter remained pending for more than a decade for one reason or the other and the learned Magistrate on 26.11.2011 passed the order directing the complainant to approach the appropriate authorities for seeking sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to prosecute the petitioner. This order dated 26.11.2011 was challenged by way of filing revision No. 58 of 2011 in the court of sessions judge. The argument has been advanced that in the revision only the State Government has been made a party and the applicant/petitioner thus will not get any opportunity to put forth his submission before the learned court of revision.
(3.) It can also significantly be noted that the prior to the order dated 26.11.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate, petitioner Kanta Prasad challenged the entire proceedings before this Court by way of petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and this Court vide order dated 25.11.2011 was not inclined to accept the petition even for hearing and dismissed the same summarily with the observation that the trial shall proceed and decide the criminal case as expeditiously as possible.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.