JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the complainant-petitioner claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Revision Petition may kindly be allowed and order/Judgment dated 25.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Udaipur, in Crl Revision Petition No.40/2019 may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside and the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the learned Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gogunda, District Udaipur, in Crl Case No.192/2018 titled as State Vs. Pankaj Bhai & Ors. may kindly be ordered to be upheld in the interest of justice.” 2. As the record and the aforequoted prayer clause would reveal, the complainant-petitioner, by way of this petition, challenged the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur (‘appellate court’), whereby while allowing the revision petition preferred by the accused-private respondents and quashing and setting aside the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gogunda, District Udaipur (‘trial court’), the matter was remanded back to the learned trial court for adjudication and passing order on charges, afresh. 2.1 The learned trial court vide order dated 13.08.2019, while concluding that there is sufficient material on record to frame the charges against the accused-private respondents under Sections 143, 365, 395, 347, 384 and 323/149 IPC, committed the case to the learned Sessions Court, to the extent of the offence under Section 395 IPC only. 3. The dispute, as per the record, between the petitioner-complainant and the accused-private respondents herein pertains to some money transaction, in course of which, the accused-respondents have, at one point of time, filed a case against the complainant-petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the concerned court. 4. 3. The dispute, as per the record, between the petitioner-complainant and the accused-private respondents herein pertains to some money transaction, in course of which, the accused-respondents have, at one point of time, filed a case against the complainant-petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the concerned court. 4. So far as the present criminal proceeding launched by the complainant-petitioner against the accused-respondents is concerned, the same is traceable to a report dated 26.05.2016 submitted by the complainant-petitioner before the Police Station, Bekaria, District Udaipur, alleging therein that on 24.05.2016, the accused-respondents committed dacoity by snatching from the complainant-petitioner an amount of Rs.3,65,000/-, which he was carrying for making the necessary payments to his labourers; not only this, the accused-respondents also demanded a ransom to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-from the complainant-petitioner, and in connection with such ransom, he was abducted by the accused-respondents, accompanied by some other persons. 4.1 As per the report, the complainant-petitioner was set free from the clutches of the accused-respondents on 25.06.2016 (one day prior to lodging of the report), after they received the ransom amount of Rs.4,50,000/-from the relatives of the complainant-petitioner. 4.2 On the basis of the aforementioned report, the police registered a case/FIR No.53/2016 for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 365, 347 & 392 IPC; upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 27.04.2018 against the accused-respondents No.2 to 5 herein under Sections 143, 341, 323, 365, 347 & 392, before the learned court below, whereupon cognizance was taken for the said offences. 4.3 Vide order dated 13.08.2019, as mentioned above, the learned trial court, found the charges to be proved, as against the accused-respondents under Sections 143, 365, 395, 347, 384 and 323/149 IPC; however, offence under Section 395 IPC, being triable by the Sessions Court only, the case, to the extent of the said offence, was accordingly committed, in terms of the provisions of Section 323 Cr.P.C., to the learned Sessions Court, Udaipur. 4.4 However, vide the impugned order dated 25.03.2022, the learned appellate court, allowed the revision petition preferred by the accused-respondents against the aforementioned order of the learned trial court and remanded the matter back to the learned trial court, while quashing and setting aside the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the learned trial court, as already indicated hereinabove. 5. 4.4 However, vide the impugned order dated 25.03.2022, the learned appellate court, allowed the revision petition preferred by the accused-respondents against the aforementioned order of the learned trial court and remanded the matter back to the learned trial court, while quashing and setting aside the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the learned trial court, as already indicated hereinabove. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner, while opposing the impugned order passed by the learned appellate court and supporting the order passed by the learned trial court, submitted that the learned trial court, after making the necessary adjudication to the extent required at the stage of charge, as per the settled proposition of law, found the charges to be proved against the accused-respondents. Thus, on that count, amongst others, the learned appellate court has committed an error – factual and legal – in passing the impugned order. 5.1 Learned counsel further submitted the learned appellate court’s order is also erroneous on the count that the same was passed, while ignoring the fact that the accused-respondents, while preferring the revision petition, have not impleaded the complainant-petitioner as party therein, thereby depriving the complainant-petitioner an adequate opportunity of being heard. 5.2 Learned counsel also submitted that one of the reasons assigned by the learned appellate court in the impugned order was that while finding the charge to be proved under Section 395 IPC (pre-requisite whereof is the presence of minimum five persons in the crime concerned), the learned trial court, in its order, did not make any mention of the fifth person (apart from the four accused-respondents herein), who was allegedly involved in the crime in question. However, as per learned counsel, in the statement rendered by the complainant-petitioner and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it was clearly stated that more than five persons (8-10 persons) were actively involved in the alleged crime, but due to inadequate investigation being done by the police, the charge-sheet was filed only against four persons (accused-respondents herein). 5.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the erroneous and inadequate investigation done by the police resulted into exoneration of other accused persons, and such an error has been rectified by the learned trial court, and rightly so, more particularly, in view of the fact that the present accused-respondents had subjected the complainant-petitioner to abduction and physical & mental torture, apart from committing dacoity. 5.4 Learned counsel also submitted that the serious fault on the part of the concerned investigating authority also resulted into passing of the impugned order, whereby a serious doubt has crept in the mind of the learned appellate court, regarding presence of more than five persons in the alleged crime, but such a doubt is not sustainable in the eye of law, in view of a clear testimony of the complainant-petitioner and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 5.5 Learned counsel thus submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned appellate court deserves to be quashed and set aside, and the order passed by the learned trial court deserves to be upheld. 5.6 Learned counsel relied upon the following judgments : (a) Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Criminal Appeal No.1473/2009, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 10.08.2009; (b) Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr., AIR 1979 SC 366 and; (c) Amit Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CRL Rev. P.513/2019 & CRL.M.A.9286/2019, decided on 13.05.2019. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the accused-respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the complainant-petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents vehemently submitted that the case was investigated into by the police twice and thrice, prior to filing of the charge-sheet, and therefore, the contention of the complainant-petitioner regarding the investigation being erroneous or inadequate cannot be sustained in the eye of law, more particularly, looking into the stage of the case and the fact that the cognizance for the offences charged was taken by the learned court below on 27.04.2018. 7.1 Learned counsel further submitted that after due investigation, the concerned investigating authority found prima facie offence to be made out only against four persons, thereby ruling out the possibility of commission of the offence under Section 395 IPC. 7.2 Learned counsel also submitted that in the initial report submitted by the complainant-petitioner before the police on 26.05.2016, the names of accused-respondent No.2 Pankaj Bhai and accused-respondent No.3-Chiman Bhai, as the main accused, have been mentioned; whereas in the FIR, it was mentioned that in the alleged crime in question, 8-10 persons were involved; however, the specific identification of such persons was not at all disclosed. 7.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the aforementioned inconsistencies in the version of the complainant-petitioner in the initial report as well as the FIR, coupled with absence of any specific identification of the so-called 8-10 persons alleged to have been involved in the alleged crime, clearly casts a serious doubt upon the conduct of the complainant-petitioner himself, coupled with veracity of his case, thereby sufficient to dismantle the present criminal proceedings as a whole; but despite the same, to meet the ends of justice, the learned appellate court has passed the impugned order, which cannot be said to be suffering from any legal infirmity. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 9. This Court finds that the complainant-petitioner has rendered a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. followed by titamba testimony twice, but nowhere he has mentioned the name(s) of any person(s), other than accused-respondents No.2 and 3 herein, as the main accused persons, nor had he disclosed, in specific terms, any identification of 8-10 persons alleged to have been involved in the crime in question. 10. This Court also finds that amongst other witnesses, even the relatives of the complainant-petitioner, who allegedly were the instrumental in setting the complainant-petitioner free from the abduction in question, in their testimony, have also not specifically mentioned the names of the so-called 8-10 persons. 11. This Court further finds that in absence of a clear testimony regarding presence of five or more persons in the alleged crime in question, the learned appellate court has rightly doubted the findings recorded by the learned trial court, particularly, in relation to the offence under Section 395 IPC. 12. Though, it is a settled legal proposition of law that at the stage of charge, the court is not required to make a detailed or a roving enquiry, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that in its order, the learned trial court ought to have made a clear mention of the fifth person (apart from the four accused-respondent herein), as the main accused, involved in the alleged crime in question, so as to enable it to charge the accused-respondents for the offence under Section 395 IPC, in particular. 13. 13. In the aforementioned backdrop, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned appellate court, so as to warrant any interference therein by this Court. 14. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner do not render any help to the case of the petitioner. 15. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.