The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of impleading the accused as necessary parties in a revision filed by the complainant.

Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan,J.

1. Sri Alok Srivastava, Advocate files Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.2, which is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners files supplementary affidavit, which is also taken on record.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A for the State and learned counsel for the complainant as well as perused the documents available on record.

4. This petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 09.08.2010 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Gangster Act), Gonda in Criminal Revision No. 276 of 2009; Rajni Sahu Vs State of U.P., whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda in Misc Case No. 752 of 2009 (Rajni Sahu Vs Bhola Nath Sahu and others) and remanded the matter back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda with a direction to pass afresh order on the application moved by the opposite party No.2 under Section 156 (3) of the Code in light of the observation made in the body of the judgment after giving due opportunity of hearing to the revisionist/applicant.

5. The facts giving rise to the present petition in brief are that the opposite party No.2 Rajni Sahu, wife of petitioner No.1 Bhola Nath moved an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code against her husband and seven others who are his family members. She in her application has alleged that her marriage was solemnized with Bhola Nath Sahu on 27.01.2008. Her parents as per their financial capacity had spent money on present etc. at the time of marriage. When she went to her marital home following her marriage, accused expressed their dissatisfaction over the dowry presented by her parents to her husband. They used to pass taunting remarks on her. Later on, accused Bhola Nath put a fresh demand of one Bolero vehicle in the form of dowry at the instance of other accused named in the application. When she refused to satisfy their demand they started to harass and torture her and lastly they on 14.06.2009 had badly beaten her and left her at the bus station to got to her parents home with the warning that she will be brought back only when if she comes with Bolero vehicle.

6. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 28.08.2009 treated the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant as complaint. The complainant being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate filed a Criminal Revision No. 276 of 2009 before the learned Sessions Judge, Gonda who transferred the same to the court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Gangster Act), Gonda for disposal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the revisionist and observed that the complainant had clearly levelled allegation against the accused constituting the cognizable offence which had not been considered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, allowed the revision and set aside the order and remanded the matter back to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda with a direction to pass afresh order on the application moved by the opposite party No.2 under Section 156 (3) of the Code in light of the observation made in the body of the judgment after giving due opportunity of hearing to the revisionist/applicant

8. The accused-petitioners feeling aggrieved by the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Code.

9. The only point pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the application filed by the opposite party No.2 under Section 156 (3) was treated to be complaint by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The complainant being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate filed revision before the Session

Click Here to Read the rest of this document