- (1.) AMAR Saran, J. Heard applicant who appeared in person, Mohd. Shoab Khan for opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA.
(2.) THE applicant has been charge-sheeted in Case No. 5880 of 2004, under sections 352, 504, 506 and 427 IPC, PS Khalilabad passed by CJM, Basti, and cognizance was taken and the case is pending. Firstly the applicant submitted that in this case the order dated 27. 2. 2003 passed by the CJM, Basti (which the applicant has not even cared to annex) was set aside by the Sessions Judge, Basti, in Crl. Revision No. 473 of 2004 by an order dated 16. 7. 2005. The Sessions Judge ordered that the case be remanded back to the CJM, Basti, who was directed to decide the applicant under section 155 (2) as per the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge. In the order all the parties were directed to appear before the CJM, Basti, on 12. 8. 2005. The applicant submitted that the said order was challenged by opposite party No. 2 in Crl. Misc. Application No. 13109 of 2005 and an order was passed in the said application on 30. 9. 2005 that the contention of the applicant that only a non-cognizable offence was directed to be investigated with the permission of the learned Magistrate and a charge-sheet had been submitted in the same and the Magistrate has also taken cognizance, was not tenable and the revisional Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in going into the merits of the matter. The case was directed to be listed on 22. 11. 2005. Till then, the operation of the order dated 16. 7. 2005 passed by the Revisional Court was stayed.
(3.) THEN the applicant drew my attention to an order dated 29. 10. 2007 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Application No. 13109 of 2005, wherein the Counsel for the applicant had submitted that the application had become infructuous. Hence it was rejected and the interim order dated 30. 9. 2005 was vacated. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that he had got the criminal misc. application against the criminal revision vacated on the ground that the charge-sheet had been submitted. However, the applicant referred to a single-Judge decision of this Court in Ajay Kumar Agarwal v. U. P. State and others, 2000 Allahabad Danda Niarnaya 143 wherein there is a head-note that correctness of any decree or order cannot not be refused only on the ground that the decree or order has already been executed. Because once the decree or order is set aside, the parties would return to their original position.;