- (1.) HEARD Sri Ramanand Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for opposite parties and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed against judgment and order dated 12.7.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Revision No.279 of 2007, Shambhoo Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and another setting aside the order dated 16.3.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate allowing application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and directing to register and investigate.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist contended that this revision was initially allowed vide order dated 23.8.2007 and the impugned order was set aside, but since the order dated 23.8.2007 was passed without hearing the opposite parties, the same has been set aside by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.471 of 2009 vide order dated 16.3.2009 and the matter has been remitted for afresh disposal. He further contended that after order of Supreme Court, this revision was heard and decided in absence of the revisionist on 3.3.2011, which order has been recalled vide order dated 1.5.2012 and so now revision is to be heard and decided on merits. The brief facts of the case are that regarding incident dated 4.2.2007, the revisionist moved an application on 8.3.2007 under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which was allowed vide order dated 16.3.2007 by the Magistrate and police station concerned was directed to register and investigate. Against order dated 16.3.2007, prospective accused opposite party nos.2 to 7 filed Criminal Revision no.279 of 2007 before Sessions Judge, Basti and vide order dated 12.7.2007, the revision was allowed and order dated 16.3.2007 of Magistrate directing to register and investigate was set aside. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed in Criminal revision No.279 of 2007, the present revision has been filed by the applicant of application no.156 (3) Cr.P.C.;