Rajinder Yadav vs Meenakshi Sharma and Another

Kuldip Singh, J.—This revision has been directed against the judgment dated 2.3.2010 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala in Criminal Revision No. 14-K/2008.

The facts in brief are that the Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (II), Kangra on 26.2.2008 issued process against the Petitioner under Sections 354, 342, 506 IPC. This order was assailed by the Petitioner by way of revision. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala vide judgment dated 2.3.2010 has held that revision is not maintainable.

The Petitioner had filed the revision u/s 397 Code of Criminal Procedure and the question involved before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge was whether revision lies against the order issuing process or not. This question is now no more in resintegra in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2009 (1) RCR (Crim) 677 wherein it has been held that indisputably issuance of summons is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 of the Code. Therefore, revision u/s 397 Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable against the order issuing process.

In these circumstances, the judgment dated 2.3.2010 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge is not sustainable and the same is set-aside. The case is remitted to Learned Additional Sessions Judge for afresh decision. The parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala on 28.9.2011. The record of the case be sent back immediately so as to reach before the date fixed. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge shall decide the case expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of.