Hon’ble Harsh Kumar, J.—Heard Shri Chandra Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rajul Bhargava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri R.C. Maurya, Advocate holding brief of Shri Arun Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the opposite parties and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.4.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Agra in Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2008 (Smt. Tara Devi v. State of U.P.) whereby the Additional Sessions Judge setting aside the order dated 3.7.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4 of 2008 (Smt. Tara Vati v. Fakira) remanded the case for proceeding in accordance with the observations made in the judgment and the law laid down by Hon’ble High Court and procedure laid down by law.

3. The brief facts relating to the case are that upon the application of Smt. Tara Vati under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., in furtherance of the order of Magistrate, Case Crime No. 177 of 2007 under Sections 452/376 IPC was registered against Fakira, revisionist on 10.6.2007 and upon investigation final report was submitted by the investigating officer the very next day on 11.6.2007. The prosecutrix filed protest petition and upon hearing the Magistrate vide order dated 12.12.2007 rejected the final report and directed police station concerned for further investigation through some competent investigating officer. After further investigation, again final report was submitted and the prosecutrix again filed protest petition against the final report. This time after hearing counsel for prosecutrix, the Magistrate, vide order dated 3.7.2008 rejected the protest petition and accepted the final report.

4. Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 3.7.2008, the prosecutrix filed Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2008 before the Sessions Judge, Agra and vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.4.2009 the Additional Sessions Judge held that the prosecutrix has stated that the accused had entered in her house and committed rape on her and on her alarm, the village people who arrived there, rescued her and caught the accused at the spot and handed over to the police, so in view of the facts the Magistrate has acted wrongly in accepting the final report. Consequently allowing revision and setting aside order dated 3.7.2008, the Magistrate was directed to proceed in accordance with law.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision.

The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist was not impleaded as opposite party No. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2008 and the Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2008 was decided without affording opportunity of hearing to the revisionist, which is wrong and against the provisions of Section 401 (2) Cr.P.C; that during further investigation, the prosecutrix had filed a complaint case against the revisionist in respect of same incident which was subsequently not pressed by her and she got it dismissed; that the fact regarding filing of complaint case and its rejection was concealed by the prosecutrix from the Additional Sessions Judge and she has obtained an order behind the back of revisionist; that the case of prosecutrix is false and after investigation and further investigation no sufficient evidence was found by the investigating officer; that the final report submitted by Investigating Officer was rightly accepted by the Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge acted wrongly and illegally in setting aside the order of Magistrate and remanding the case for further disposal; that the impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge is wrong on fact and law and is liable to be set aside.

6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties defended the impugned order and argued that the revisionist/accused is an influential person because of which despite catching him at the time of occurrence on the spot and handing over to police, the police did not