( 1 ) THIS application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 23-8-2002 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 255 of 2002 and order dated 17-4-2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Deoband district Saharanpur in Criminal Case No. 346 of 2002.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this application briefly put are that Shiv Kumar, opposite party No. 2 lodged a report on 10-1-2001 at P. S. Deoband, district Saharanpur against the applicant and six other persons with the allegations that on 10-1-2001 at about 9 a. m. he came out of his house for sending his son Rajan to school and observed that the applicant and other co-accused armed with country made pistols and lathi dandas came to his house and observing him they fired on him by guns and country made pistol. However, he was saved and did not sustain injuries, but his son Rajan sustained pellet injuries. Hearing sound of firing his brother Brahma Pal and Om Pal came out of their house and the applicant and other co-accused attacked on them and caused injuries with lathi danda. The occurrence was witnessed by several persons.

( 3 ) ON the basis of above report, a case at crime No. 15 of 2001 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 IPC against the applicant and 7 other persons. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against 7 persons and the applicant was not challaned.

( 4 ) ON coming to know that applicant was not challaned, the opposite party No. 2 moved an application before the learned Magistrate for summoning the applicant for trial along with other co-accused on the ground that the police wrongly did not submit charge-sheet against him while there was sufficient evidence against him.

( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate on hearing learned Counsel for the prosecution held that on perusal of the evidence collected during investigation prima facie case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 325, 323 and 504, IPC was also made out against the applicant. The learned Magistrate, accordingly, summoned him by the impugned order dated 18-7-2001.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED with the above order, the applicant moved application before the Magistrate for recall of the order dated 18-7-2001. The learned Magistrate rejected the above application, vide order dated 17-4-2002.

( 7 ) AGGRIEVED with the above orders, the applicant filed criminal revision No. 255 of 2002 before the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. The above revision was heard and dismissed by the impugned order dated 23-8-2002 by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4 on the ground that there was no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Magistrate.

( 8 ) THE above orders have been challenged in this application.

( 9 ) HEARD Sri Devendra Dhama, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A.

( 10 ) A preliminary objection was raised by the learned A. G. A. that the applicant had preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge against the order of the Magistrate and therefore, he cannot file application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to circumvent the provisions of Section 397 (3), Cr. P. C. as held by the Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Prasad v. Bashir, 2001 (7) JT SC 652 : AIR 2001 SC 3524.

( 11 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is maintainable even on dismissal of the revision of the applicant. In support of his above contention, he placed reliance on Full Bench decision of this Court in H. K. Rawal v. Nidhi Prakash, 1990 Cri LJ 961 : (1989 All LJ 732 ). The Apex Court in recent decision of Rajinder Prasad v. Bashir (supra) clarified the scope of Section 482, Cr. P. C. in the case a revision at the instance of applicant was dismissed as below :-

"we are of the opinion that when the earlier revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Code had been dismissed as not pressed, the accused-respondents could not be allowe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document