Ashok Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner Arvind Kumar Singh feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.8.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Revision No. 342 of 2004.
(2.) THE brief facts which need mentioning here are that on 14.03.2004, the complainant -petitioner Arvind Kumar Singh was going to his village in a car alongwith his family members. When they reached near the place of occurrence at about 7.30 P.M., another car coming from the opposite direction intercepted the car of the complainant and forced it to stop. Thereafter opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 alongwith two other persons came out from their car. They were armed with iron rods, hockey sticks and a revolver which was held by opposite party No. 2. One Rajveer was also traveling with the complainant. The opposite parties No. 2 to 4 pulled Rajveer out of the car and thereafter assaulted him mercilessly. The opposite party No. 2 Vipin Chandra Sharma fired at Rajveer causing injury to him. The injured, the complainant and his family members raised an alarm upon which a number of people assembled there. Thereafter the assailants ran away from the place of occurrence in their car. The complainant went to the police station Udaipur to lodge a report but his F.I.R. was not registered there. Thereafter they rushed to Raebareli where the injured Rajveer was given treatment. On the next date of the incident, the complainant got the injured medically examined at the District Hospital, Pratapgarh where his injury report was prepared. He informed the Superintendent of Police of the district about the incident but no action was taken against the accused persons. Thereafter the complainant approached the court of the Magistrate at Pratapgarh with an application under Section Cr.P.C. Under the orders of the Court, an F.I.R. was lodged at the police station and the matter was investigated. After the investigation of the case, the investigating officer was of the opinion that there was no substance in the case and as a consequence he submitted a final report in the court. A notice was issued to the complainant who appeared before the court and filed a protest petition. After due hearing, the learned Magistrate rejected the final report and summoned four persons namely Vipin Chandra Sharma, Manohar Lal, Vinay Kumar Sharma @ Ram Neel Sharma and Anjani Kumar under Section / I.P.C. Opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 felt aggrieved by this summoning order and preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh. After hearing both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision and set aside the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate on 27.10.2004 and remanded back the matter to him for considering the matter afresh keeping in view the directions given by him in the revisional judgment. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, the present petition has been filed. Notices were issued to the opposite parties and they have put in their appearance and contested the case.
(3.) I have heard Sri I.B. Singh learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri Girish Chandra Sinha, learned Counsel for opposite parties and learned A.G.A.;