SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision has been filed challenging the validity of the order dated 25.1.2014 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Etah in Sessions Trial No. 297 of 2012 (State of U.P. Vs. Surendra Singh and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) SC and ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah whereby the court below has allowed the withdrawal of the prosecution case which the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were facing in the Court.

(2.) Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State. The entire records have also been perused.

(3.) The central hub of the submissions made on behalf of the revisionist is that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law because of the reason that at an earlier stage the same court had refused to discharge the accused on the ground that prima facie there was sufficient material available on the record on the basis of which the charge ought to be framed against them. The contention of the counsel for the revisionist is that after having concluded and given the finding about the sufficiency of material on the basis of which the charges should be framed, the court below should not have allowed the withdrawal of the prosecution which was going on against the accused.