DEEPENDRA BISHT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Criminal Complaint Case No. 4605 of 2017 'Smt. Bijyanti @ Salma vs. Smt. Bishani @ Naseem Bano and Others', which was registered before the court of A.C.J.M. Haldwani, District Nainital. The said complaint case, which was registered before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has rejected the same by an order dated 22.12.2017 in view of the provisions contained under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Being aggrieved against the rejection of the complaint, it is the complainant, who has invoked the revisional jurisdiction by filing a Criminal Revision No. 38 of 2018 'Smt. Bijyanti @ Salma vs. Smt. Bishani Devi and Another' the revisional court after considering the propriety of the order dated 22.12.2017, had passed an order dated 27.07.2019, by virtue of which while setting aside the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 22.12.2017 has remitted the matter back to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for a fresh consideration of the complaint as submitted by the respondent to pass fresh order after hearing the parties and has fixed 7.08.2019 for hearing before the Trial Court.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that as far as the direction, which has been issued on 22.12.2017 for reconsideration of the complaint submitted by the respondent no. 2 herein, was absolutely not tenable for the reason that even otherwise also as per the finding, which has been recorded by the revisional court the rejection of a complaint cannot be faulted of because the rejection, has been followed on account of the finding, which has been recorded in the order dated 22.12.2017 to the effect that the Xerox copy of the document for the purposes of sustaining the complaint cannot be read in evidence and there is no such sustainable evidence produced to maintain complaint filed for the purposes of drawing proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 406 of IPC.