JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the complainant-petitioner claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Revision Petition may kindly be allowed and order/Judgment dated 25.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Udaipur, in Crl Revision Petition No.40/2019 may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside and the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the learned Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gogunda, District Udaipur, in Crl Case No.192/2018 titled as State Vs. Pankaj Bhai & Ors. may kindly be ordered to be upheld in the interest of justice.”

2. As the record and the aforequoted prayer clause would reveal, the complainant-petitioner, by way of this petition, challenged the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur (‘appellate court’), whereby while allowing the revision petition preferred by the accused-private respondents and quashing and setting aside the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gogunda, District Udaipur (‘trial court’), the matter was remanded back to the learned trial court for adjudication and passing order on charges, afresh.

2.1 The learned trial court vide order dated 13.08.2019, while concluding that there is sufficient material on record to frame the charges against the accused-private respondents under Sections 143, 365, 395, 347, 384 and 323/149 IPC, committed the case to the learned Sessions Court, to the extent of the offence under Section 395 IPC only.

3. The dispute, as per the record, between the petitioner-complainant and the accused-private respondents herein pertains to some money transaction, in course of which, the accused-respondents have, at one point of time, filed a case against the complainant-petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the concerned court.

4. So far as the present criminal proceeding launched by the complainant-petitioner against the accused-respondents is concerned, the same is traceable to a report dated 26.05.2016 submitted by the complainant-petitioner before the Police Station, Bekaria, District Udaipur, alleging therein that on 24.05.2016, the accused-respondents committed dacoity by snatching from the complainant-petitioner an amount of Rs.3,65,000/-, which he was carrying for making the necessary payments to his labourers; not only this, the accused-respondents also demanded a ransom to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-from the complainant-petitioner, and in connection with such ransom, he was abducted by the accused-respondents, accompanied by some other persons.

4.1 As per the report, the complainant-petitioner was set free from the clutches of the accused-respondents on 25.06.2016 (one day prior to lodging of the report), after they received the ransom amount of Rs.4,50,000/-from the relatives of the complainant-petitioner.

4.2 On the basis of the aforementioned report, the police registered a case/FIR No.53/2016 for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 365, 347 & 392 IPC; upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 27.04.2018 against the accused-respondents No.2 to 5 herein under Sections 143, 341, 323, 365, 347 & 392, before the learned court below, whereupon cognizance was taken for the said offences.

4.3 Vide order dated 13.08.2019, as mentioned above, the learned trial court, found the charges to be proved, as against the accused-respondents under Sections 143, 365, 395, 347, 384 and 323/149 IPC; however, offence under Section 395 IPC, being triable by the Sessions Court only, the case, to the extent of the said offence, was accordingly committed, in terms of the provisions of Section 323 Cr.P.C., to the learned Sessions Court, Udaipur.

4.4 However, vide the impugned order dated 25.03.2022, the learned appellate court, allowed the revision petition prefer