PARMENDRA DOBAL Vs. MUKTA MEHRA & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, a First Information Report has been lodged on 09.05.2013 by respondent No. 1 Mukta Mehra under Sections 328/376/506 of I.P.C. at Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital against the present applicant, namely, Parmendra Dobal, who was the Circle Officer of City Haldwani at the relevant time. There are allegations of rape etc. against the applicant. The police/CBCID, though after investigating the matter, submitted its final report against the present applicant. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent No. 1 preferred a protest petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, which was subsequently dismissed by the court concerned vide order dated 15.09.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred a revision in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Nainital in which notices were issued to the applicant. During the pendency of revision, the matter was transferred to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in which the complainant moved an application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. seeking to place on record an original copy of the First Information Report as well as copy of right to information sought by the complainant. Ultimately, the application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. moved by the complainant has been allowed by the court vide order dated 16.05.2016. Hence, the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.05.2016 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Revision No. 89 of 2015.

(2.) Heard Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddartha Sah, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. P.S. Saun, learned Deputy Advocate General with Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. Sanpreet Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 1 and perused the records.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Arvind Vashisth appearing for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 16.05.2016 in which the order is that the matter be fixed for argument on 28.05.2016 before the revisional court. The matter is hence still pending before the revisional court i.e. in the court of 1st Additional Session Judge, Nainital. The argument of the learned Senior Advocate, however, is that from the perusal of the order, it is clearly reflected that the revisional court has exceeding its revisional power and has exercised the powers of an appellate court, since it is only an appellate court which can take additional evidence under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. There power do not vest with a revisional court. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Sanpreet Singh, on the other hand, would argue that this is not so.