IND SYNERGY LIMITED, THOUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SATYADEEP SAHUKAR Vs. SURESH CHAND GOYAL S/O LATE RATANLAL GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 12.3.2018 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No.22 of 2018, whereby the order dated 23.12.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Complaint Case No.32 of 2015 has been set aside and the application of the present Respondent preferred under Section 205 read with Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been allowed.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that a criminal complaint case under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the present Applicant against the Respondent/accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 30.7.2015 for an offence punishable under Sections 500, 501 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After recording statements of witnesses, vide order dated 16.12.2015, the Trial Court registered the complaint filed by the Applicant and issued process against the Respondent. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2015, the Respondent filed Criminal Revision No.47 of 2016 and Criminal Revision No.97 of 2016 under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, which were dismissed by the Sessions Judge vide order dated 23.7.2016. Against the order dated 23.7.2016, the Respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court which was registered as Cr.M.P. No.853 of 2016. In the meanwhile, before the Trial Court, on 19.1.2016, the Respondent filed an application under Section 205 read with Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his permanent exemption. Vide order dated 22.9.2016 passed in Cr.M.P. No.853 of 2016, this Court directed the Trial Court to decide the application under Section 205 read with Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with law. Vide order dated 26.12.2016, the Trial Court dismissed the application under Section 205 read with Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the present Respondent and a warrant was issued against the present Respondent. On 20.1.2017, the present Respondent filed Criminal Revision No.22 of 2017 before the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur against the order dated 26.12.2016 passed by the Trial Court. Vide order dated 3.3.2017, the revision was dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent challenged the order dated 3.3.2017 before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.319 of 2017. Vide order dated 3.8.2017 of this Court the above Cr.M.P. No.319 of 2017 has been dismissed as withdrawn with certain liberty. On 9.3.2017, the Respondent appeared before the Trial Court for the first time and filed an application under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. The Trial Court granted bail to the Respondent. Thereafter, on 6.4.2017, the Respondent again filed an application under Section 205 read with Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Trial Court. Vide order dated 23.12.2017, the Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that earlier the Respondent's application had been dismissed on 26.12.2016 and the dismissal being affirmed by the Sessions Judge, the fresh application on the same ground cannot be entertained as not maintainable. Against the said order dated 23.12.2017, the Respondent filed Criminal Revision No.22 of 2018 before the Court of Session at Bilaspur. Vide the impugned order dated 12.3.2018, the Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the revision filed by the Respondent and set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hence, the instant revision by the Applicant/Complainant.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/Complainant submitted that the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court dated 23.12.2017 is an interlocutory order and, therefore, Criminal Revision No.22 of 2018 preferred by the Respondent before the Sessions Court was not maintainable. Despite that, the Sessions Court entertained and allowed the revision which is contrary to law. It was further submitted that the Sessions Court erred in interfering with the order passed by the Trial Court without considering that earlier the application had been rejected and rejection has been affirmed by the High Court in Cr.M.P. No.319 of 2017. The Sessions Court ought to have considered that earlier the application has been rejected and, therefore, the subsequent application on the same ground is not maintainable.