SAJJAN KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Crl.R. No.80/94, Sajjan Kumar v. State. By this application the revisionist prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to take all the pleas as raised in the present revision petition before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage. The facts of the case are that' the Trial Court by its order dated 1.3.94 summoned the revisionist along with one Ishwar Singh as accused in a case under Sections 147/148/149/436/307/395 IPC. Feeling aggrieved by that order this Crl. R. No. 80/94 was filed in this Court oh 5.4.1994. After hearing was made notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the revision petition be not admitted fixing 22.4.94. On that date the revision petition was heard in part by V.B. Bansal, J. Further arguments were heard in part on 25.4.1994. On 26.4.94, on some preliminary point, arguments were heard and orders were reserved. But on May 2,1994, V.B. Bansal, J. passed an order to the effect that His Lordship would hear arguments on all the points and the prelimiary objections would be dealt with while disposing of the revision petition. Thereafter, on 22.7.94 V.B. Bansal, J. released the case from being part heard. Thereafter the revision petition has not been heard so far though several dates were fixed.

(2.) The application for withdrawal with liberty to take pleas before the Trial Court has been vehemently opposed by the learned Counsel for the opposite party. The ground taken is that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the revision and that the revisionist has already delayed the trial before the lower Court by raising legal pleas here in this revision petition and now he should not be allowed to further delay the matter by raising all the-pleas before the Trial Court.

(3.) During the course of arguments the learned Counsel for the applicant brought to the notice of this Court that during the arguments on the main revision petition the thrust of the opposition made by the opposite party was that all the pleas raised in the revision petition could be taken before the Trial Court. On the basis of the aforesaid alleged facts the learned Counsel for the applicant contended that when the revisionist is accepting to follow the course as proposed by the opposite party; then now why should the learned Counsel for the opposite party object to the present application.