MUZAFFAR ALI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant in the present C482 application has challenged the impugned order dtd. 4/3/2013 as passed by respondent no. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 503/2012 'Smt. Neelkamal Sharma vs. State and Others', whereby, the revisional court while setting aside the order dtd. 10/9/2012 as passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, it had directed the initiation of the proceedings on the basis of the guidelines, which has been issued in the impugned revisional order dtd. 4/3/2013.

(2.) Instead of venturing into the factual backdrop, which is involved in the instant C482 application, the arguments which has been extended by the learned counsel for the applicant, is limited from the view point that when the revisional court was exercising its power under Sec. 397 r/w 40 of the Cr.P.C., it could not have while reversing the judgment of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar, could have issued a specific direction or ought not to have recorded any finding on the merits of the matter, which would have constituted to be the part of the proceedings under Sec. 156(3), as while passing the order of remand the Court, could have either directed to register an FIR and allow the application No. 156(3), but when the court is remanding the matter after quashing the order under challenge before the revisional court, then it has had to be an independent direction and it ought not to be a direction which could even have a slightest effect or influencing effect by any of the findings, which has been recorded by the revisional court on the fresh decision which is directed to be taken by the order of remand.

(3.) On this count the learned counsel for the applicant had placed reliance on a judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 312/2018 'Rajendra Rajoriya vs. Jagat Narain Thapak and Another', in particular, for the purposes of the present C482 application, the learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of paragraph 15 of the said judgment, which is quoted hereunder: