MADHVI GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the instant petition is cognizance order dtd. 10/8/2017, passed in Criminal Case No.1029 of 2014, Dr. Sudarshan vs. Sanjay Goswami, by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/1st Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Haridwar, District Haridwar (for short 'the case') as well as the order dtd. 10/9/2018 passed in Criminal Revision No.544 of 2017, Sanjay Goswami and another vs. State, passed by the court of learned II Additional Session Judge, Haridwar District Haridwar (for short 'the revision').

(2.) The facts, necessary for disposal, briefly stated are that respondent no.2 filed an application under Sec. 156 Sub Sec. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), which was initially rejected on 3/9/2012 by the Judge 'A'. The order rejecting application under Sec. 156(3) of the Code dtd. 3/9/2012 was challenged in revision, which was allowed on 23/2/2013 and the matter was remanded for fresh hearing. The case was again taken up by the same Judge 'A' and the application under sec. 156(3) of the Code was treated as a complaint vide order dtd. 20/3/2013. After inquiry this complaint was dismissed vide order dtd. 16/7/2014, passed in the case. This order dtd. 16/7/2014 was challenged in Criminal Revision No.416 of 2014. Vide order dtd. 22/11/2016, while allowing the revision, the matter was again remanded for hearing afresh on cognizance order. It is interesting to note here that this order in revision was passed by the same Judge 'A', who had earlier at one stage rejected the application under Sec. 156(3) of the Code on 3/9/2012 and subsequently vide order dtd. 20/3/2013 treated the application under Sec. 156(3) of the Code as a complaint. Pursuant to the order dtd. 22/11/2016, the case was again taken up and vide order dtd. 10/8/2017 cognizance was taken and the petitioners have been summoned to answer the accusation under Ss. 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The order dtd. 22/11/2016 passed in the case was again challenged in the revision, which was rejected on 10/9/2018. Aggrieved, the instant petition.

(3.) Respondent no.2 at one stage appeared but at the stage of final argument today none is present on behalf of respondent no.2 though counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.2.