Decided on May 13,2013

Yakoob And Others Appellant
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents


Alok Singh, J. - (1.) PRESENT petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 10.10.2012 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar whereby criminal revision filed by the present petitioner challenging the impugned order passed under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge having observed that criminal revision is not maintainable against the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 204 Code of Criminal Procedure. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Om Kumar Dhankar vs. State of Haryana and another reported in : 2012(11) SCC 252 in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 has hold as under: 9. Insofar as the first question is concerned, it is concluded by a later decision of this Court in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam. In Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande case this Court considered earlier decisions of this Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra3, V.C. Shukla v. State4, Amar Nath v. State of Haryana5 and K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala6 and it was held as under: (Rajendra Kumar case, SCC p. 137m para 6) 6. ...his being the position of law, it would not be appropriate to hold that an order directing issuance of process is purely interlocutory and, therefore, the bar under sub -section (2) of Section 397 would apply. On the other hand, it must be held to be intermediate or quashi -final and, therefore, revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 could be exercised against the same. 10. In view of the above legal position, we hold, as it must be, that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC was available to Respondent 2 in challenging the order of the Magistrate directing issuance of summons. The first question is answered against the appellant accordingly. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court a criminal revision is maintainable before the Sessions Judge against the summoning order passed by the Magistrate under Section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, impugned order does not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, present petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by learned revisional court dated 10.10.2012 is set aside. Revision stands remanded and restored to its original number on the file of revisional court. Revisional court shall hear the revision and shall decide the same at its own merit, in accordance with law. Petitioner shall remain present before the revisional court on 10.06.2013.;

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