SUDARSHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. Arvind Vashisht, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. B. S. Parihar, Brief Holder for respondent no. 1. Issue notice to the respondent no. 1 on the applicants4 taking steps within three days. Heard on admission.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants contended that a complaint was filed on the similar allegations in which the applicants were summoned in the earlier round of litigation by the Magistrate concerned. The revisional court while dismissing the revision directed that if the applicants/accused in the case had any grievance against the summoning order they may file an objection to recall the said summoning order. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, a petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. was filed before this Court in which summoning order of the applicants was quashed and a fresh inquiry was ordered in accordance with the observations of the judgment. Thereafter, the Magistrate after conducting the inquiry dismissed the complaint under section 203 Cr. P. C. However, no revision or other remedy was availed against the dismissal of complaint by the complainant of that case. In this round of litigation, an identical complaint was filed in which the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under section 203 Cr. P. C. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed a revision before the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge remitted the matter and directed to reconsider the summoning of the accused in the light of the observations made in the judgment. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that once the complaint against the applicants had been dismissed under section 203 Cr. P. C. on the similar allegations and the order has attained the finality the applicants-accused cannot be summoned again on a similar complaint.

(3.) LEARNED Brief Holder for the State did not dispute that contents of both the complaints are different. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to stay the operation of the order dated 31. 01. 2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Therefore, I direct that the operation of order dated 31. 01. 2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 507 of 2007 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.