IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision was based on the proper appreciation of the evidence/material available in the record, the legality of the order taking cognizance, and the power of the revisional court under Section 397, 398, 399, and 401 of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to set aside the order dated 04.02.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.625 of 2019 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XV Cum F.T.C. (CAW), Ranchi whereby and where under the revisional court has set aside the order taking cognizance dated 11.09.2019 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi in Complaint Case No.3614 of 2018 now pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Ranchi.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant/opposite party No.2 of this Cr.M.P. filed Complaint Case No.3614 of 2018 and arrayed five persons as accused in the said complaint case. The learned S.D.J.M found sufficient grounds only for the offences punishable under Sections 506 of the Indian Penal Code against only one accused being the petitioner No.1 herein. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the complainant filed Criminal Revision No.625 of 2019 in the court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was ultimately heard by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XV Cum F.T.C. (CAW), Ranchi. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XV Cum F.T.C. (CAW), Ranchi formulated the following question for determination in the said Criminal Revision:-

“Whether the impugned order dated 11.09.2019 is just proper, based on the proper appreciation of the evidence/material available in the record?”

4. After considering the materials in the record, the revisional court observed that in its order dated 11.09.2019, the learned S.D.J.M. has not recorded the satisfaction for forming his opinion and sufficiency of ground for proceeding and the documents filed by the complainant with the complaint has not been mentioned in the said order and the learned S.D.J.M. has overlooked various aspects of the case which has been mentioned in detail in the said order passed in the criminal revision. Hence, finding the order dated 11.09.2019 being not in accordance with law, the revisional court set aside the said order and directed the learned S.D.J.M. to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving full opportunity to both sides for placing their submissions and remanded the case back to the court concerned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned revisional court failed to appreciate the evidence of the case and the legal bar in impleading a stranger in a Criminal Revision as the proposed accused No.5 of the protest petition namely Atul Kumar @ Atul Kumar Pandey was not cited as a proposed accused in the Protest-Cum-Complaint Petition No.3614 of 2018 but he was added by order dated 27.06.2019. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the revisional court did not take into consideration, the pendency of several litigations between the parties in several courts. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajendra Rajoriya vs. Jagat Narain Thapak & Another reported in (2018) 17 SCC 234 para-13 of which reads as under:-

“13. The extent of the revisionary powers, inter alia, is provided under Section 399 read with Section 401 CrPC. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that Section 398 has to be read along with other sections which are equally applicable to the revision petitions filed before the Sessions Court. Section 398 only deals with a distinct power to direct further inquiry, whereas Section 397 read with Section 399 and Section 401 confers power on the revisionary authority to examine correctness, legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order. The powers of the revisionary court have to be cumulatively understood in consonance with Sections 398, 399 and 401 CrPC.”

and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the power of the revisional court under Section 397, 398, 399 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. and the le