The applicant has preferred this revision under section 379/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) against the order passed on 29.7.2004 by Additional Sessions Judge, Nasrullaganj district Sehore in Sessions trial No. 2/04 for quashing the order of framing of the charges against the applicant.

The prosecutrix lodged one complaint on 12.8.2001 in Police Station Budhni and the crime was registered under sections 376, 342 read with section 34 of IPC and also under section 3 (1) (vii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Even after recording of statements of witnesses, charge-sheet was not filed. Thereafter, a criminal complaint was filed by the prosecutrix but the same was dismissed by Judicial Magistrate I Class, Budhni vide order dated 17.12.2002. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the prosecutrix preferred a criminal revision under section 397 of the Code, which is still pending for final hearing. In the meanwhile, the non-applicant (Police Authority) registered a criminal case against applicant and other co-accused persons under section 182, 211 and 109 of IPC and filed a criminal complaint. This complaint case was committed to the Sessions Court vide order dated 10.12.2003 and the Sessions Court framed the charge under section 109 of IPC against the petitioner.

Against the order of framing of charges, this revision has been preferred on the grounds. that the revision petition filed by the prosecutrix is still pending in the Sessions Court and admitted for final hearing, therefore, the registration of the criminal case by the police authorities was not within their powers. The Magistrate had no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint as the case was triable by the Court of Session. The order passed by the Court below suffers with material irregularity and is liable to be quashed.

On perusal of this revision petition, I found that some of the grounds raised with regard to the dismissal of earlier complaint, cannot be a subject matter of this revision. This revision has been filed only on this ground that the revision is pending in the Court and it has already been admitted for final hearing, therefore, the police had no authority to register this criminal case. In my opinion, this cannot be a subject matter of this revision. It is for the party to pray before the revisional Court to issue stay order and that Court is at libally to pass suitable orders and if there is no stay order the police is at liberty to register a case or to file the complaint case before the competent Court.

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 29.7.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Nasrullaganj challenging the order of framing of charges but it has not been challenged that the Sessions Court has wrongly proceeded with the case even after taking this fact into consideration that the committal Court has wrongly committed the case without recording statements of all the witnesses. In this revision petition, at least I am unable to find out such ground. This is a legal point on which the revision should have been filed. Though, the revision is not filed on abovementioned ground even then this Court can examine the record for the purpose of satisfying as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the finding of the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.

The petitioner and other accused raised an objection before Sessions Court that the committal Court failed to record the statements of all the witnesses as provided under the proviso of sub-section 2 of section 202 of the Code, therefore, the Sessions trial cannot be continued and for this the learned counsel for the accused persons referred the cases of Bajji. Kunjilal v. State of M. P 1981 JLJ 684 = 1981 MPLJ 657 and Prayag Singh v. Stale of M.P, 1990 (II) MPWN 96, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the police has filed the private complaint, ther