- (1.) In complaint case no. 575/9 of 2013 (Shravan Kumar Vs. Rambhul & others), ACJM, Court No.-1, Muzaffar Nagar had passed order dated 11.7.2013 by which six persons were summoned for prosecution of offence under Section 147, 148, 323, 452, 392, 307, 504, 506, 427 IPC. Against said order, Criminal Revision no. 85 of 2014 (Nitoo Vs. State of U.P. & another) was preferred, which was heard and allowed by judgement dated 30.01.2015 of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-1, Muzaffar Nagar. In this judgement, the revisional court had held that the impugned order was passed without applying judicial mind. After hearing to the parties, revisional court had also held that order of summoning for Section 392 and 307 IPC appears not in accordance with law and on this ground revisional court had allowed the revision and remanded the matter for passing fresh order by trial court in accordance with law.
(2.) The judgment of revisional court dated 30.01.2015 passed in Criminal Revision no. 85 of 2015 has been challenged in present application by complainant of the original complaint case.
(3.) This contention of learned counsel for the applicant is acceptable that trial court is not supposed to give finding of fact and any observation on facts by it should not be considered by trial court at the time of passing of fresh order on merits.;