Mahendra Pal Singh and Others vs State and Another

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—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.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

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 u/s 420/468 of I.P.C. On said criminal complaint, Civil Judge (Junior Division) /Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital, vide his order dated 04-11-1995 summoned the accused (present revisionists) for their trial in respect of the offences punishable u/s 420 and 468 of I.P.C. after examining the complainant u/s 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the witnesses u/s 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure

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 appears that the complainant (present Respondent No. 2) challenged said order by filing criminal revision No. 59 of 1996, which was allowed by the revisional court, vide its order dated 24-04-1999 which is impugned in this Revision, in hand.

In view of principal of law laid down in Adalat Prasad v. Roop Lal Jindal; reported in 2004 S.C.C. (Cri) 1927, a Magistrate has no power to recall the order passed by it u/s 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure 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.

For the reasons, as discussed above, this Revision is liable to be dismissed, and the same is hereby dismissed with the observation that the revisionists may raise their plea of innocence before the trial court, including the one that the entire dispute between the parties, is of civil nature.