Geetam Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri S.D. Yadav holding brief of Sri J.S. Kasyap, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 5.

This revision is directed against the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Criminal Revision No. 59 of 2010, Shivnath Singh @ Janved and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others.

The summoning order passed by the Magistrate was set aside by learned Sessions Judge and the matter was remanded back to the Magistrate for passing fresh order in light of directions given in the judgment and order dated 27.1.2010.

Earlier, summoning order was passed by the Magistrate. In Criminal Revision No. 267 of 2009 filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 5, the summoning order was set aside and the matter was remanded with directions. Despite directions given in the judgment of Criminal Revision No. 267 of 2009, again the Magistrate passed a cryptic order on 20.3.2010 without indicating points involved in the case and without a finding as to whether the prima facie case was made out or not.

The order dated 20.3.2010 has been set aside by learned Sessions Judge by impugned order dated 12.8.2010 as the order passed by the Magistrate was a non speaking order and directions given by the revisional court in Criminal Revision No. 267 of 2009 were not complied with.

In these circumstances, I do not find any error or illegality in the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad.

The revision is accordingly dismissed.

However, learned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order u/s 204 or u/s 203 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law after complying with the directions given in the judgement in Criminal Revision No. 267 of 2009 expeditiously, if possible within a period of 30 days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.