- (1.) PURSUANT to a complaint (Annexure P -1) filed on 27.4.2007, Atul Kashyap (now revisionist/petitioner) and Amrit Sagar Kashyap (father of the revisionist/petitioner and now no more) were summoned vide order (Annexure P -2) dated 5.5.2010 to face trial under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120 -B IPC. After appearance of the petitioner and his father (non -petitioner), pre -charge evidence against them was led by the complainant. Though aggrieved from the order of summoning (Annexure P -2), the petitioner and his father (non -petitioner) had filed CRM -M No.4017 of 2012 in this Court on 9.2.2012 and notice of motion as also regarding stay had been issued but it remained pending.
(2.) ON conclusion of pre -charge evidence by the complainant, on evaluation and appraisal of such evidence and attending circumstances, the trial court found no merit in the case and dismissing the complaint, the petitioner and his father were discharged vide order (Annexure P -3) dated 24.8.2012. Sequelly, CRM -M No.4017 of 2012 which was lying pending in this Court having been rendered infructuous was dismissed on 4.10.2012 (Annexure P -4).
(3.) AGGRIEVED with the order of 24.8.2012 (Annexure P -3), the complainant had field a revision petition (Annexure P -5) before Sessions Judge, Panchkula on 6.11.2012. Hearing the parties, the revisional court setting aside order (Annexure P -3) dated 24.8.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula granted one more opportunity to the complainant (now respondent No.1) to conclude his pre -charge evidence. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court. Aggrieved with this order dated 3.6.2013 of the revisional court, the petitioner has come up in this revision petition claiming that the facts and attending circumstances were neither considered in right perspective nor had engaged the quantum of attention those required for their consideration. It is further claimed that dismissal of complaint after evaluating pre -charge evidence had resulted in discharge of the petitioner and his father (nonpetitioner) which amounted to acquittal and sequelly, the said order of 24.8.2012 could only be challenged by the complainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is thus averred that the said order could not have been challenged in a revision petition before the Sessions Judge but it was to be challenged by filing an appeal in this Court.;