SATBIR SINGH KHATKAR AND OTHERS Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present criminal revision petition has been filed by Satbir Singh Khatkar, Ravinder Tomar and Badri Parshad, challenging the order dated 5.8.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, whereby the revision filed by the respondent/complainant, Satish Kumar, was allowed and the matter was remitted to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, for reconsideration on the aspect of summoning, keeping in view the observations of the said Court.

(2.) The only submission of Mr. Narula is that learned Court of Session could not have observed that prima facie enough evidence to summon the respondents for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 193, 195-A, 468 and 471, IPC, was made out. To elaborate his submission, he has submitted that by such observation, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is bound to be influenced and he (Chief Judicial Magistrate) has to pass the summoning order. He further submits that the very purpose of remitting the case to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for reconsideration on the aspect of summoning, would be frustrated. In support of his contention, he has referred to Section 398, Cr.P.C., in which it has clearly been mentioned that the revisional Court can order for further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or sub-section (4) of Section 204, Cr.P.C. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments delivered in the cases of Jai Prakash Pathak and others v. Surendra Gendley and another, 2009 1 Crimes(HC) 380 (Chhattisgarh)(Bilaspur Bench), and Harun Khan v. Mahesh Chand, 1997 2 Crimes(HC) 301(MP).

(3.) In the above said case law it has been held that the only order that can be made by the revisional Court under Section 398, Cr.P.C., is for further inquiry.