Order on Board

05.03.2024

1. None appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this present revision when the case was called out. The matter is an old one, the same cannot be adjourned, hence the Court proceed to hear the matter with the assistance of learned State Counsel.

2. Heard Mr. Sakib Ahmad, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.2/State.

3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated

25.03.2013 passed in CRR No. 26/2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District- Jashpur (C.G.) whereby the learned revisional Court has remanded the case for deciding the application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C filed by the respondent No.1 herein / complainant against which the applicant herein has filed the present revision.

4. The facts of the case, are that, the respondent No. 1 filed a complaint case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patthalgaon against the Sukhdev Saw for alleged offence under section 420, 201, 166, 167, 217, 218, 34 of Indian Penal Code which has been registered as Criminal Case No. 705/06. The complainant adduced his evidence before the trial court alongwith other co-witnesses in support of his case. On 11.02.2011, the complainant filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C for making the revisioner an accused in the said complaint case, on the ground that at the relevant time when she was posted at Police Station, Jashpur as A.S.I. she did not discharge her ofÏcial duty as per law, after receiving the complaint of the complainant in which the certified copy of Sukhdev's afÏdavit was enclosed and favouring to the Sukhdev Saw remove the afÏdavit of Sukhdev Saw from the application, therefore she also made a accuse in the complaint for alleged offence under section 420, 201, 166, 167, 217, 218, 34 of Indian Penal Code. After receiving the application the learned trial court summons the revisioner for adducing her evidence which has been taken on 11.06.2012 by the trial court in which she stated that on 23.03.2003 she received the certified copy of the Sukhdev's afÏdavit dated 04.12.2009 alongwith the application whom she tagged with relevant document of complainant's application and kept it, in the police station. After perusal of complaint, evidence, application and heard the argument of the complainant, rejected the application of the complainant/respondent No.1 filed under section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code with the finding of that perusal of the complaint, evidence of complainant witness and evidence of revisioner, there is nothing materials against the revisionist to implead her as an accused in the complaint case filed by the complainant. Against the said order, respondent No. 01 filed a Criminal Revision No. 26/2012 before the Upper Session Judge Kunkuri whereby the Learned Revisional Court has remanded the case with the direction that the trial court pass an appropriate order, after minutely going through the evidence available in the record that, whether there is necessary material available in the record or not against the respondent No.1 herein for the trial, by passing the order dated 25.03.2013, against which the revisionist / applicant herein file this revision.

5. None appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1 despite service of notice.

6. Mr. Sakib Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for respondent supports the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in which no interference is called for.

7. It transpires from the record that the respondent No. 1 had filed an application before the learned trial Court under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. which was rejected on 23.08.2012 for summoning the respondent No.1 alongwith the co-accused Sukhdev is facing trial. The said order was further challenged by the respondent No. 1 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, which stood allowed vide order dated 25.03.2013 setting aside the order dated 23.08.2012 with a direction to reconsider the issue as to whether the