Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor none appeared on behalf of the non-petitioner No.2.

(2). By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have challenged the order dated 2.5.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in criminal revision No. 191/92. By the above mentioned order the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition which was filed by the Poosa Ram (non petitioner No.2) and set aside the order dated 29.6.1990 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh.

(3). The facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below:

(4). On 1.6.1990 Poosa Ram (non-petitioner No.2) lodged the first information report No. 71/90, alleging there in the commission of offences under Sections 147, 447 and 323 IPC. On the basis of the first information report No. 71/90 lodged by non-petitioner No.2 the police registered a case and after investigation submitted the final report No.20/90, under Section 173 Cr.P.C. In the final, report submitted by the police it was stated that the allegations made by Poosa Ram were false and that he was actuated with the intention of obtaining possession in an unlawful manner.

(5). The Station House officer of the Police Station, Ratangarh, filed a complaint in the Court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, against Poosa Ram (non-petitioner No.2) in respect of offence under Section 182 IPC and prayed that suitable action be taken on that complaint. On the basis of the com- plaint filed by Station House Officer, against the non-petitioner No.2, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 182 IPC and directed the issue of summons calling upon the accused Poosa Ram before him.

(6). Poosa Ram filed a revision petition against the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby the cognizance of the offence under Section 182 IPC was taken against him and process was issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The revision petition was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge where it was registered at No. 191/92. After hearing the learned counsel for Poosa Ram and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the order on 2.5.1995. He allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate where by the cognizance of the offence under Section 182 IPC was taken and process was issued against Poosa Ram.

(7). A perusal of the order dated 2.5.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge shows that it was submitted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that Poosa Ram had filed a complaint in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding the same incident as was alleged in the first information report No. 71/90 and the complaint filed by Poosa Ram was dismissed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C. but in revision the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by which he dismissed the complaint of Poosa Ram under Section 203 Cr.P.C, was set aside and the complaint was remanded to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for disposal according to law. It was urged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that since Poosa Ram filed a complaint alleging the same facts which he has alleged in first information report No. 71/90, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 182 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found force in the arguments advanced before him and he held that since he had set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, dismissing the complaint of Poosa Ram under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and reman- ded the case, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 182 IPC againstPoosa Ram was not permissible. Consequently, he all

Click Here to Read the rest of this document