The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revision petition was not barred by limitation, and the trial Court's order dropping the proceedings against the respondents was not challenged in the present petition.

JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA J.

1. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing of order dated 09.03.2018 passed by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad; whereby revision petition filed at the instance of respondents was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court for passing a fresh order upon the summoning of respondents.

2. Briefly the facts stated in the complaint are that M/s Adel Landmarks Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘developer’) announced a real estate project in the name of “Era Divine Court” Sector 76, Faridabad in the year 2011; on its inducement the complainant i.e. the petitioner booked one flat No.1508, Tower A-2, Sector 76, Faridabad and made payment of Rs.24,99,549/- after obtaining a loan for a sum of Rs.15,88,400/- from respondent No.1. It has been further stated in the complaint that the developer and its Director/Managing Director, in collusion with respondent No.1 cheated the petitioner and other innocent buyers having made illegal gains. The relevant portion of allegations against the respondents as made out in Para 5 of the complaint are reproduced hereunder:-

“That the accused No.1-7 in collusion with the accused no.8 i.e. M/s DHFL Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as DHFL) has cheated the present complainant herein along with several other innocent buyers and have made illegal gains to the tune of about Rs.100 to 150 crores. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused no.1-7 have lured the buyers to fall in their traps through their own assurances, various newspaper advertisements, personal visits of their officials etc. and thus have dishonestly induced the complainant and several other buyers to spend large sums of their hard earned money into their project on the basis of fake and false projections made by them Copy of brochure circulated by the accused at the initial stage of the project is annexed herewith as “Annexure B(Colly)”.

3. In the aforesaid complaint, respondents, besides four others were summoned to face trial under Section 420 of IPC vide order dated 10.07.2017 passed by Court of JMIC, Faridabad. The aforesaid order was challenged before the revisional Court at the instance of respondents which was allowed vide order dated 09.03.2018; whereby the trial Court was directed to pass a fresh order qua the revisionist. Operative portion from Para 13 thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

“The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate above said facts, hence, impugned order qua the revisionist is not sustainable and the present revision is hereby allowed and impugned order is hereby set aside qua revisionsists. However, the learned trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order qua revisionists in accordance with law.”

4. In pursuance thereof, the trial Court while passing fresh order dated 04.04.2018, directed to drop the proceedings qua the respondents herein, followed by issuance of bailable warrants against others, arrayed as accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 in the complaint. By way of present petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.03.2018 passed by the revisional Court; whereby the matter was remanded back to the trial Court upon setting aside of the summoning order dated 10.07.2017.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision petition against the summoning order dated 10.07.2017 was filed after an inordinate delay and that too without filing any application for condoning the same and thus, it could not have been entertained on merits. He further submits that revisional Court while passing order dated 09.03.2018 travelled beyond its jurisdiction as the defence raised by the respondents was not to be considered at the summoning stage and in this regard he relies upon a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. Vs. State of UP and Ors.” reported as (2015) 6 SCC 287. Learned counsel further submits that while passing order dated 04.04.2018, no fresh ap