N.R.Asthana, J. - (1.) The revisionist filed a complaint against the opposite parties under Sections 395/397/342/166/167 and 217/218 I.P.C. in the court of C.I.M. Sonbhadra alleging in brief, that on 23-1-1991 at about 7-00 P.M. he was at the door of his house when the opposite parties armed with lathi, danda, axe and guns came to his house, and started looting his articles whereupon he and the members of his family protested upon which, they beat them up with lath is and threatened to kill with gun. They caused injuries to the complainant, Ghanshiam, Raj Bahadur and also to the complainants mother and grandmother. One of them Patangi Mishni was apprehended at the spot by the persons who had collected the thereupon hearing the hue and cry. The complainants report was not taken down at the police Station. On the other hand he was arrested and put inside the Hawalat on the F.I.R. filed by one Adya Prasad at the instance of the opposite parties under Sections 147, 323, 427, 436, 407, 308 and 506 I.P.C. The complainant sent applications to higher authorities but without any result and then the complaint was filed.
(2.) The complainant examined himself, Raj Bahadur, Ghanshyam, Deo Pandey, Smt. Jilewa Devi, Smt. Dilwanti, Ramdu, Devendra Nath and Dr. Ramji Singh who had examined the injured persons. The C.J.M. summoned the opposite parties for the offence punishable under Section 3951397 I.P.C. Aggrieved by it the opposite parties filed Criminal Revision No. 29 of 1993 which was allowed on 25-1-1995 by learned II AddI. Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra. The order in question was set aside and the case was remanded to the C.J.M. for recording further evidence in the case and then pass an appropriate order. Aggrieved by it the complainant has approached this Court by way of revision.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It has been argued that no revision lies against the summoning order and as such the lower revisional court acted beyond jurisdiction in entertaining the revision and setting aside the summoning order passed by C.J .M. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of the opposite parties that there are other authoritative pronouncements which were not considered while holding that no revision lies against summoning order and therefore the question whether revision lies against summoning order should be referred to a larger Bench.;