Sachin S/o Vishnuprasadji Gupta vs Prakash Gaikwad

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

The petitioner challenges the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Revisional Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision Application No.13/2022, whereby the revision filed by the complainant against the order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti, came to be dismissed.

Shri Dawda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons recorded by the Revisional Court is erroneous inasmuch as the order challenged before the Revisional Court was an order dated 27.08.2018, by which the entire proceedings came to be rejected and dismissed only on the ground that there does not appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The said order, therefore, cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to invoke the bar under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The revision came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, only by recording that in the context of revisional jurisdiction, such dismissal in the circumstances of the case would not fall within the scope of revisable orders.

Shri Dawda, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Rajoria vs. Jagat Narayan Thapak and another^{11.(2018) 17 SCC 234}, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that revisional power can be exercised by the Sessions Court against the dismissal of the complaint by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the Respondent, submits that though the order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti in S.C.C. No.333 of 2018 was passed after due application of mind by the Courts below, the Complainant was found absent on the date of hearing. The statement under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be recorded, nor were the witnesses of the Complainant present. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, upon perusal of the contents of the complaint, found that there were no substantial grounds for proceeding against the accused, and accordingly the complaint was dismissed. The impugned order rejecting the Revision Application is both on merits as well as on the ground of maintainability, since point No.2 answered by the Court is also on merits. He therefore submits that the impugned order is just, proper, and liable to be maintained.

I have gone through the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the Revisional Court. I have also gone through the order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti, whereby the complaint came to be dismissed not only on the ground that the complainant was not present, but also on the ground that there does not appears to be sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.

Thus, the entire proceedings came to be disposed of by the order, which was under challenge in revision by the applicant herein. The Revisional Court has wrongly interpreted the said order to be an order which would does not fall within the scope of the revisable order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Rajoria (supra) was pleased to observe as under:-

Thus, in my opinion, there is a patent error and material irregularity committed by the learned Revisional Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, in refusing to exercise power under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. on the ground of maintainability, and therefore, it requires to exercise the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order :-

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.