2007 (4) TMI 769 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the dismissal of the complaint u/s 256 Cr. P.C.
2. Maintainability of the revision against the order of dismissal.
3. Jurisdiction of the Lower Revisional Court.

Summary:

1. Legality of the dismissal of the complaint u/s 256 Cr. P.C.:
The complaint was dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (A.C.J.M.), 1st Muzaffarnagar on 5.2.2004 due to the non-appearance of both parties. The court noted that "if the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate has to acquit the accused unless he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day." This dismissal amounts to an acquittal of the accused u/s 256(1) Cr. P.C.

2. Maintainability of the revision against the order of dismissal:
The complainant challenged the dismissal in Criminal Revision No. 146/2004 before the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 25.4.2005. However, the High Court observed that "against the dismissal of complaint which amounted to acquittal of accused, the complainant had a right to file special leave to appeal u/s 378(4) Cr. P.C. in this Court." Since the complainant did not pursue this route, the revision was not maintainable due to the prohibition contained u/s 401(4) Cr. P.C.

3. Jurisdiction of the Lower Revisional Court:
The High Court concluded that the Lower Revisional Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the order dated 5.2.2004. The impugned order dated 25.4.2005 was passed "in the teeth of Section 378(4) Cr. P.C. read with Section 401(4) Cr. P.C." and thus, cannot be sustained.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 25.4.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar, and allowed the revision, stating that the Lower Revisional Court's order was "de hors the law."