RAVINDRA SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Madan Mohan Srivastava learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and Sri R.K. Khanna learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed against the order -dated 6 -3 -2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Court No. 28 Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1035 of 1996 whereby the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 was allowed and the order dated 19 -9 -1996 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., 1st Allahabad was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Court of learned A.C.J.M., 1st Allahabad to dispose of the matter on priority basis considering the observations given in the judgment in accordance with the provisions of law. The facts in brief of this writ petition, are that an FIR was lodged in case crime No. 124 of 1989 under Section 409 I.P.C., P.S. Khuldabad, District Allahabad on 13 -3 -1989 by the respondent No. 2 against two persons, namely, C.D. Singh and Rangi Lal Tripathi. The petitioner was not named in that F.I.R. as an accused. The matter was investigated. The I.O. submitted final report on 8 -9 -1989. The notice was sent to the respondent No. 2 by the Court, giving an opportunity of hearing to him on the final report. After receiving notice respondent No. 2 appeared in the Court, but the respondent No. 2 did not file any objection against the final report, so the learned A.C.J.M., 1st Allahabad accepted final report on 19 -8 -1991. After acceptance of the final report the respondent No. 2 filed an objection dated 19 -8 -1991 in the Court of the learned A.C.J.M., 1st Allahabad with a prayer that the abovementioned order dated 19 -8 -1991 may be set aside. That application was allowed by the learned Magistrate concerned on 27 -8 -1991 by recalling the order dated 19 -8 -1991 and the case was restored to its original number and by the same order final report was rejected and the cognizance was taken against the petitioner and co -accused C.D. Singh and Rangi Lal Tripathi and they were summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C. Against the order dated 27 -8 -1991 the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 1250 of 1991. The same was dismissed by this Court on 20 -12 -1993 in which it was observed that the petitioner may file the objection under Section 227 Cr. P. C. before the trial Court in respect of his grievance. Thereafter the petitioner and other co -accused filed an application under Section 227 Cr. P. C. in the Court of learned Magistrate. The same was rejected on 15 -4 -1996. This order was challenged by the petitioner by way of filling the Criminal Revision No. 658 of 1998. The same was allowed on 20 -8 -1996 by learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad and the order dated 15 -4 -1996 was set aside and the matter was again remitted to the Court of learned Magistrate for passing a fresh order in pursuance of the order dated 20 -12 -1993 passed by this Court and the direction given by the revisional Court in judgment and after considering the evidence available on the record. Thereafter, the learned A.C.J.M., 1st Allahabad passed a fresh order dated 19 -8 - 1996 and the application moved by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr. P. C. allowed and he was discharged for the offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C. The order dated 19 -8 -1996 was again challenged by the respondent No. 2 by way of filling Criminal Revision No. 1035 of 1996 which was allowed on 6 -3 -2003 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 28, Allahabad and the order dated 19 -8 -1996 was set aside and the matter was again remitted to the Court of the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law after considering the observations given by the revisional Court in the judgment. The order dated 6 -3 -2003 was challenged by the petitioner by way of filling the present petition.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was posted as Pravar Adhikshak, Rail Daak Sewa at Allahabad in the year 1988 and an advertisement was issued inviting tenders for sale of waste papers of the department, vide letter No. H5/32/88 -89 of 20 -5 -1988 for which the respondent No. 2 has applied for tender and tender was accepted in his favour, but after obtaining the tender of waste papers of Railway Mail Service, Postal Department, the respondent No. 2 has not complied with the terms and conditions of the tender, thereafter, his name was blacklisted by the petitioner vide letter dated 29 -9 -1988. On account of this declaration the respondent No. 2 became annoyed with the employees of the Railway Department. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. after thought on 13 -3 -1989 at the police station Khuldabad, Allahabad on the basis of the allegations made against the C.D. Singh and Rangi Lal Tripathi, employee of the Department of Railway. The allegation was that the Officers and the employee of the Railway Mail Service, 8 Division, Allahabad have misappropriated the amount of Rs. 13,393, which was deposited by the respondent No. 2. In that F.I.R. there was no allegation against the petitioner.;