HEM CHANDER SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to appreciate the contentions raised in this petition, the following facts deserve to be taken notice of.

(2.) THE petitioner filed certain complaints against -one Ram Kumar to the Chief Minister, Haryana, alleging therein that the said Ram Kumar was threatening him and his parents of dire consequence with a view to extort money from them. This complaint Was concededly gone into or investigated by Shri, Raj Singh, S.H.O., Charkhi Dadri, and he found the same to be false and frivolous. Thereafter Raj Singh filed the present complaint against the petitioner under Section 182 Indian Penal Code. On an objection having been raised on behalf of the petitioner that the said complaint could not be maintained by Shri Raj Singh, as such. and a complaint could only be filed by the authority to whom it had been made, the complaint filed by Shri Raj Singh was dismissed by the trial court and the petitioner was acquitted. Then Ram Kumar who was. neither the complainant nor the accused in the present proceedings preferred a revision petition in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, against the order of the Magistrate acquitting the petitioner in the complaint filed by Raj Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the trial court and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings vide his order dated 19th July, 1986. The petitioner impugns this order.

(3.) THE primary submission of Mr. Naubat Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that no revision petition was maintainable before the Additional Sessions Judge against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Magistrate on 17th May, 1983. The said order of the Magistrate was appealable, though with the permission of this court under Section 378(4) of the Code. of Criminal Procedure. That appeal having not, been filed, sub -section (4) of section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure completely barred the maintainability of a revision petition against an order of acquittal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in this submission of Mr. Naubat Singh.