Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for opposite party no. 1 and Sri Manish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

2. This revision has been filed praying to quash the order dated 20.04.2017 in Complaint Case No. 715 of 2015 (Neha Vs. Amar Deep), under Section 406 IPC, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. By the impugned order, the application of the revisionist/ accused, raising objection to the evidence filed by the opposite party no. 2/ complainant, has been rejected, observing that the documents filed as per list dated 08.07.2016 may be relevant and helpful in effective disposal of the case. It was also observed that the charges have not been framed as yet and therefore, the revisionist/ accused have an opportunity to rebut the evidences by filing documentary evidences as also opportunity of cross examination under Section 246 Cr.P.C. Submissions:

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that once the court below has completed the evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C., it was not open for it to take the evidences on record which have been filed by the complainant/ opposite party no. 2 vide list dated 08.07.2016. He relies upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr (2009) 14 SCC 115 (para 19), Sunil Mehta & Anr Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr 2013 (81) ACR 295 (SC) (para 12) and a judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Saktipada Dolui & Anr Vs. Sm. Madhabi Dolui & Ors 2003 CriLJ 328 (para 4).

4. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 supports the impugned order and states that after passing of the impugned order dated 20.04.2017, charges have also been framed.

5. Learned A.GA. submits that there is no bar to take evidence at a stage prior to the stage of section 246 Cr.P.C. He explains the provisions of Sections 244, 245, 246 Cr.P.C. with the help of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Ajoy Kumar Ghose (supra) (paras 21, 22, 25 & 40) and the law laid down in the case of Sunil Mehta (supra) (paras 16 to 20).

Discussion and Findings:

6. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the opposite party no. 2/ complainant is the wife of the revisionist herein who were married on 25.02.2012. She had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 14.01.2013 before the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut for alleged commission of offences under Sections 406, 420 IPC. The said application was treated as a complaint case by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 18.03.2013 being Complaint Case No. 713 of 2012. Her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 09.04.2013. The statement of witness was recorded on 01.05.2013 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide summoning order dated 20.06.2013 took cognizance and issued summons only to the parents of the revisionist namely Sri Virendra Singh and Smt. Manju under Section 406 IPC.

7. The aforesaid Virendra Singh and another (parents of the revisionist) challenged the summoning order dated 20.06.2013 as well as the proceedings of the complaint case no. 713 of 2012 by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5686 of 2014 (Virendra Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. And another) which was allowed by order dated 24.02.2014 and proceedings as well as summoning order against them were quashed.

8. On the other hand, aggrieved with not summoning the revisionist herein i.e. the husband, the opposite party no. 2 filed a Criminal Revision No. No. 314 of 2013 (Smt. Neha Vs. State of U.P. And another) before the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut which was allowed by order dated 12.03.2014 and the matter was remanded to the Magistrate concerned. By order dated 02.09.2014 passed in the aforesaid complaint case no. 713 of 2012 the revisionist herein was summoned under Section 406 IPC