BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 3rd July, 2009 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the criminal revision petition No. 12/2009 and set-aside the order dated 6th January, 2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur, whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur took the cognizance of the offence under Section 58 of NDPS Act, 1985 and the offences under Sections 166, 211, 220, 342, 458 and 500 of Indian Penal Code and issued a warrant of arrest against the accused non petitioner No. 2 Anil Agarwal to procure his appearance in the Court.
(2.) Background facts, emerging in the instant case, in a nut shell, are stated thus: "That the complainant revisionist Rakesh Gupta happens to be proprietor of firm "Poddar International" and engaged in the business of purchase and sale of allopathic drugs and medicines. He obtained a license to run the business from the State Government as also an import and export code No. 1305003004 from the Government of India. It has been alleged that the accused respondent No. 2 Anil Agarwal, the Drug Control Officer, Bharatpur was also running the same business in the name of his relative Umakant. The accused respondent No. 2 Anil Kumar was rendering his full support to Umakant in his business. Since both the complainant revisionist and the accused respondent No. 2 were involved in running the same business, a business rivalry between the two cropped up and ultimately it became personal. It is further alleged that on 17th March, 2005, an inspection was carried out by both, the Drugs Inspector and the police. The police registered the First Information Report No. 66/2005 in the offences under Sections 8/22 and 8/23 of NDPS Act, whereas Drugs Inspector filed a separate complaint for the offences under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Act. The police seized the relevant documents as also material on the spot. In order to further the action of accused respondent No. 2, Raj Kamal Chhipa, Drugs Inspector filed a complaint against the revisionist and his wife Smt. Jyoti Gupta whereupon the court took the cognizance of the offences and proceeded against them. Aggrieved with this order of cognizance, the revisionist challenged the same in the High Court and the High Court having allowed the petition, quashed and set-aside the order of cognizance dated 24th May, 2005. The accused revisionist No. 2 under a hatched plot planned an inspection of the business premises to be taken by the police on account of personal animosity and the police illegally seized the relevant documents and drugs illegally detained his wife Smt. Jyoti Gupta, abused his official position, instituted a false criminal proceeding against him and his wife with an intent to cause injury to them. Not only that, these proceedings were totally unjust and unlawful but they were illegally sent for trial also to the Court. Shri Cheepa filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur, who having recorded the statements of the complainant revisionist and other witnesses, took cognizance of the offences under Section 58 of NDPS Act, Section 166, 211, 220, 342, 458 and 500 of Indian Penal Code and issued a warrant of arrest to procure the appearance of accused non revisionist No. 2 Anil Kumar Agarwal. Aggrieved with the order of taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences, accused respondent No. 2 filed a criminal revision petition No. 12/2009, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur, Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur also quashed and set-aside the impugned order dated 6th January, 2009, whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued a warrant of arrest against Anil Kumar Agarwal."
(3.) Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 3rd July, 2009 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur, complainant revisionist Rakesh Gupta has filed this second criminal revision petition No. 1455/2009 in the High Court, which is pending for its adjudication before me.;