BHARAT SINGH GEHLOT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 10.7.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 3, Jodhpur (for short "the reivisional Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2007 whereby while allowing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1.2.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jodhpur (for short "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Complaint Case No. 103 of 2004, set aside the order of the trial Court dismissing the application under Section 468 Read with 251 Criminal Procedure Code filed by the accused-petitioner, and directed the trial Court to again record the statement of independent witnesses and pass appropriate order. Aggrieved by the order impugned to the extent directing the trial Court to again record the statement of independent witness and pass a fresh order, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order passed by the revisional Court as well as by the trial Court.

(3.) On a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 before the trial Court, the trial Court afforded an opportunity to the complainant non-petitioner No. 2 to produce his evidence. The complainant himself appeared and got examined himself as CW-1 and produced his daughter Mamta as CW-2. No other witness was produced by the complainant. The complainant closed his evidence at his own and requested the trial Court to take the cognizance of the offence and issue process against the petitioner. By order dated 15.4.2004, the trial Court took the cognizance of the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. and issued process and in pursuance thereof the petitioner appeared before, the trial Court and filed an application under Section 468 Read with Section 251 Criminal Procedure Code to drop the proceedings as the cognizance is barred by period of limitation as envisage under Section 468 Criminal Procedure Code The trial Court by order dated 1.2.2006 dismissed the said application, against which the petitioner filed a revision and the revisional Court held that there is inimical relation between the parties and there had been certain criminal cases between the parties and, therefore, set aside the order dated 1.2.2006. However, remitted the matter to the trial Court to again record the evidence of the independent witnesses and thereafter to pass a fresh order. The question for consideration before this Court is as to whether the order of the revisional Court is justified to the extent directing the trial Court to again record the statement of independent witness which the complainant did not wish to produce.