YOGENDRA PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In complaint case No.16036 of 2009 Yogendra Prasad Vs. Jitendra, relating to P.S. Cant, Gorakhpur, the Court of CJM Gorakhpur had passed order of cognizance and summoning dated 11.11.2010 by which 3 accused persons Jitendra, Raju and Sanjay were summoned for prosecution of offences under Sections 467, 468, 384, 386 IPC. Against this order of trial court Criminal Revision No.224 of 2015, Jitendra Mani Tripathi Vs. State of UP and another was preferred. In said revision, both parties were afforded opportunity of hearing; then revisional court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.-7, Gorakhpur had allowed the revision by its judgment dated 08.07.2016, by which order dated 11.11.2010 was set aside and matter was remanded to trial court with direction that after hearing of the parties of complaint case, trial court would pass appropriate legal order in light of directions given in judgment of revision. This order dated 08.07.2016 passed by lower revisional court has been challenged in present revision.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that lower revisional court had committed error at the time of deciding criminal revision No.224 of 2015 when it had considered and relied the defence version of accused persons, which was not available before the court at the time of passing the order of cognizance and summoning.

(3.) From perusal of record and judgment of lower revisional court, this observation of learned Sessions Judge appears erroneous that at the time of passing appropriate order on point of summoning, the directions of revisional court on merits of the case, should be considered. When matter was remanded for passing appropriate order then it should be passed appropriately without being influenced by anything including direction of the revisional court.