Revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. not maintainable against the revisionary order of the Sessions Judge - No grounds for exercise of inherent power by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar, J. - This criminal revision, filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C, arises out of the revisionary order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 28.05.2010. By the said order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the summoning order dated 02.03.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, in the complaint case, viz., Crl.No.79/1 of 02.05.1998. As a sequel, he remanded the matter for reconsideration and to pass a fresh order in the spirit of the directions given by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in Criminal Revision No.532 of 1999. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant preferred the present revision.

2. By order dated 30.05.2014, this Court stayed further proceedings pursuant to the remand order before the learned Magistrate at Ludhiana. The stay order is in operation as on date.

3. Compendious arguments having been advanced by Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K.S. Nalwa, learned counsel for the respondents, and Mr. Amar Ashok Pathak, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, the matter is ripe for disposal.

4. The petitioner filed a complaint in Crl.No.79/1 of 02.05.1998 under Sections 417, 419, 420, 463, 468, 471, 472, 477-A, 120-B and 34 IPC alleging commission of offences in relation to the funds and property of Guru Nanak Education Trust and the educational institutions run by it, including Guru Nanak Girls College at Ludhiana. The four respondents herein, along with another, figured as the accused in the said complaint. In the course of his preliminary evidence, the complainant examined himself apart from four other witnesses. However, the learned Magistrate at Ludhiana called upon the police to investigate and submit a report, in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereupon, the Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Ludhiana, undertook an investigation and submitted a report adverse to the complainant. As a result, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint by order dated 16.01.1999.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant preferred Criminal Revision No.532 of 1999 before this Court. The said revision was disposed of by order dated 01.09.2000. Therein, this Court found favour with the complainant's contention that the learned Magistrate had taken account of only the police investigation and not the preliminary evidence led by him, i.e., his deposition and the depositions of his witnesses. This Court accordingly set aside the order dated 16.01.1999 and directed the learned Magistrate to decide afresh as to whether or not process should be issued to the accused, after considering the preliminary evidence together with the investigation made by the police.

6. Pursuant to this order, the learned Magistrate at Ludhiana passed the order dated 02.03.2010 holding that sufficient grounds were made out to proceed against all the accused for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. They were accordingly summoned to face trial.

7. Aggrieved by the said summoning order, four out of the five accused in the complaint, viz., the respondents herein, preferred Criminal Revision No.10 of 28.05.2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. This revision was allowed by the impugned order dated 04.04.2014. Thereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the respondents' plea that the learned Magistrate at Ludhiana had not considered the investigation made by the police at all and had gone only by the preliminary evidence. In consequence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the summoning order and remitted the matter for reconsideration and to pass a fresh order taking into account the directions of this Court in Criminal Revision No.532 of 1999. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed this exercise to be completed within two months. However, owing to the stay granted by this Court in the present revision, th