Litigants must come to the court with candid facts and clean hands, and suppression of material facts is forbidden.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajay Singh, learned Brief Holder representing the State, Mr. Shubham, learned counsel for accused (opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4).

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the complainant-applicant with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Bulandshahr in Criminal Revision No. 49 of 2023 (Vichitra Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of summoning order dated 29.03.2022 in Complaint Case No. 55 of 2022, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 452 IPC, police station Kotwali City, district Bulandshahr.

3. Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are that in an incident which took place on 09.12.2021, applicant/complainant-Vaibhav Jaiswal received injuries, in respect whereof the applicant filed a criminal complaint dated 01.01.2022 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr against opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statements of the complainant and the witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C respectively, summoned opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 under Section 204 Cr.P.C. to face trial for the offence under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 451 I.P.C. vide order dated 29.03.2022. The said summoning order dated 29.03.2022 was challenged by the accused-opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 before the High Court by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 10374 of 2022. The High Court vide order dated 15.09.2022, while declining to interfere with the summoning order dated 29.3.2022, directed the applicants therein to surrender before the Trial Court and to file bail application, which was directed to be decided by the Trial Court in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

4. Instead of complying with the order of this Court dated 15.09.2022, the applicants therein (opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 ) by concealing the order dated 15.09.2022 passed by the High Court filed criminal revision under Section 397, 399 Cr.P.C. on 03.10.2022 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Bulandshahr against the same summoning order dated 29.03.2022, in which, the applicant, who is complainant, filed objection dated 19.04.2023 mentioning the relevant facts about dismissal of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 10374 of 2022 vide order dated 15.09.2022 by the High Court (copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure No. 10 to this application) but the revisional court, ignoring the said fact, allowed the criminal revision vide order dated 26.05.2023 setting aside the summoning order dated 29.03.2022 directing the learned Magistrate concerned to pass fresh order, which is the subject matter of challenge by the complainant in the present application.

5. On putting query as to whether pursuant to order dated 26.05.2023, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr has passed any further order in the matter or not, it has been informed by learned counsel for the parties that no further order has been passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

6. Assailing the impugned order dated 26.05.2023, main substratum of argument of learned counsel of the applicant is that the accused persons-opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 have preferred criminal revision under Section 397 and 399 Cr.P.C. against the summoning order dated 29.03.2022 before the Additional Sessions Judge by concealing the material fact that their application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the same summoning order has already been rejected by the High Court vide order dated 15.09.2022. The said fact and order dated 15.09.2022 of the High Court was brought to the notice of the revisional Court by the applicant through his objection, but the revisional Court ignoring the objection of the applicant illegal