The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court must adhere to the specific mode of action and the statutory provisions in criminal law, including the requirement to condone delay and issue processes before directing an individual to appear before the court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prabhat Kumar assisted by Sri Vimal Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Aniruddha Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State, and perused the record.

2. Instant application has been filed by the applicant, assailing the order dated 30.6.2016 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, District Balrampur in Criminal Revision No. 36 of 2015. He has further challenged the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.860 of 2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, District Balrampur.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the respondent no.2 had filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate-I, District Balrampur. The respondent no.2 levelled allegation therein that the applicant executed registered agreement to sale on 27th of September 2013 with respect to Gata No.465 having area 0.202 hectare and Gata No.628 having an area 0.142 hectare situated at Village Mathura, Police Stateion Lalia, District Balrampur. The respondent no.2 has further made allegation that the sale consideration was fixed as Rs.2,40,000/- out of which Rs.2,00,000/- was allegedly given in cash at the time of execution of the said agreement and the remaining amount was allegedly agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The allegation is that after the aforesaid agreement, the said plot was soled out to Ms. Shaheena and Mr. Kamruddin. Further allegation is that when the complainant/revisionist went to the house of the applicant on 10th of April 2014, the applicant, who was sitting with the other accused persons, started abusing and beating her.

4. Vide order dated 22nd of May 2014, the Magistrate treated the aforesaid application as a complaint case and listed it for recording the statement of respondent no.2 under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The opposite party no.2 got her statement recorded under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Further the statements of other two witnesses were recorded under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate.

5. After recording the statement of the complainant as well as the witnesses, the Judicial Magistrate-I, vide his order dated 25th of July 2014, issued process under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. and summoned the applicant under Sections 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. A categorical finding was also recorded by the Magistrate that as per the version of the complaint and the statements made under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the case is made out only under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and so far as the allegation with regard to breach of the agreement and execution of the sale deed is concerned, the same was a civil dispute and no criminal offence is made out in that regard.

6. Being aggrieved by the summoning order dated 25th of July 2014, the opposite party no.2 filed a criminal revision before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, District Balrampur, which was registered as Criminal Revision No.36 of 2015. The revision was time barred as that was instituted about delay of nine months but the revisional court entertained and allowed the revision, vide order dated 30th of June of 2016 without condoning the delay in filing the said revision and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication by the Magistrate concerned.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the revisional court has passed the order on 30th of June 2016, in most mechanical manner and, while passing the aforesaid order, no finding was recorded with regard to incorrectness or unlawfulness of the order passed by the Magistrate. He also added that the application submitted by the respondent no.2 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which was registered as a complaint case, is an abuse of process of law. He added that no offence is made out against t