Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 128 (UTT)

MAHENDRA PAL SINGH v. STATE

2007-03-22

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.04.1999, passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in criminal revision No. 59 of 1996, between the parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a criminal complaint case No. 512 of 1995 was instituted by the respondent Century Pulp and Paper Ltd. against the revisionists alleging that the accused (present revisionists) have committed offence punishable under Section 420/468 of I.P.C. On said criminal complaint, Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital, vide his order datd 04.11.1995 summoned the accused (present revisionists) for their trial in respect of the offences punishable under Section 420 and 468 of I.P.C. after examining the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. 4. It appears that the accused filed objections before the court of Magistrate and prayed for recalling of order dated 04.11.1995, whereby they were summoned in the aforesaid criminal case. Learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties, vide his order dated 22.05.1996, recalled the order dated 04.11.1995 and discharged the accused. It apperas that the complainant (present respondent No. 2) challenged said oder by filing criminal revision No. 59 of 1996, which was allowed by the revisional court, vide its order datd 24.04.1999 which is impugned in this Revision, in hand. 5. In view of principal of law laid down in Adalat Prasad Vs. Roop Lal Jindal; reported in 2004 S.C.C. (Cri) 1927, a Magistrate has no power to recall the order passed by it under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. i.e. the summoning order passed in a criminal complaint. As such, in the opinion of this Court, learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed no error of law by allowing the criminal revision No. 59 of 1996, whereby order dated 22.05.1996, passed by the Magistrate is set aside. 6. For the reasons, as discussed above, this Revision is liable to be dismissed, and the same is hereby dismissed with the observation that the revisioists may raise their plea of innocence before the trial court, including the one that the entire dispute between the parties, is of civil nature.