Nathi Singh Tomar vs State of Uttaranchal and Another

Irshad Hussain, J.—Heard Sri Rajendra Singh Kotiyal, counsel for the revisionist, A.G.A. and Sri Lokendra Dobhal, counsel for the Respondent No. 2-complainant.

The Respondent-complainant has filed copies of the statements recorded u/s 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. Keep on record.

The written complaint after recording the evidence u/s 202, Cr. P.C. was dismissed by the learned Magistrate u/s 203, Cr. P.C. The impugned order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge under revision and the learned Sessions Judge per judgment and order dated 25.6.2001 set aside the order of the Magistrate and directed the Magistrate to summon the accused for the offence under which the complaint was made. The subsequent direction in this regard is against the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge was only legally competent to consider the legality and propriety of the order passed u/s 203, Cr. P.C. and if it was found that there was no appraisal of the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge should have set aside the impugned order of rejection of complaint and should have directed the learned Magistrate to re-consider the evidence on record as to whether a prima facie case was made out or not against the accused nominated in the criminal complaint. Considering this, the revisional judgment and order is liable to be set aside.

The revision is accordingly partly allowed and the judgment and order dated 25.6.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, is modified to the extent that the learned Magistrate shall re-appraise and re-consider the evidence adduced in the complaint under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. and thereafter shall pass appropriate order according to law.