1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 169 of 2003 Abbass S/O Late Shri Ismayil R/O Kasba & Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffarnagar. …………… Revisionist/Complainant Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal. 2. District and Session Judge, Haridwar 3. Constable Megh Singh@ Mehak Singh S/O Mahendra Singh 4. Constable Rajkumar Both 3 & 4 posted at the time of occurrenceat OP Imali Khera Police Station, Bhagwanpur District Haridwar. 5. Kushalpal (since deceased)S/O Hari Ram 6. Ratan Lal S/O Surja 7. Molhu Singh S/O Hardwari 8. Mahendra Singh S/O Kishan Lal All 5 to 8 R/O Village Mannuwas, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar …………..Respondents Shri Rajendra Singh, Advocate present for the revisionist Smt. Mamta Bisht A.G.A present for the State Shri Sandeep Tandon and Shri Manish Arora, Advocate present for respondent no. 3 to 8. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against judgment and order dated 21.08.2003, passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in criminal revision No. 442 of 2002, whereby said court has 2 set aside order dated 27.11.2001, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, and remanded the matter for fresh orders to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. (2) Brief facts of the case are that in the intervening night of 27 and 28 of March, 1991, two persons namely Meharban and Brijmohan were killed within the limits of village Mannuwas. A report was got lodged by one Jatiram with the Police Station Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar, relating to offences punishable under section 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C which was registered as crime no. 38 of 1991. In said report on behalf of the villagers of Mannuwas it was stated that deceased Brijmohan and Meharbaan were criminals, who along with the four others had come to village Mannuwas, where on being challenged they fired at the villagers who chased them and lynched the two of them (Brijmohan and Meharbaan). The police submitted final report in said crime no, in view of death of the two alleged criminals, and the others could not be traced out. However, it was mentioned in the final report that the two deceased, on the day had earlier looted a bus and a crime was registered with Police Station, Biharigarh(in the district of Saharanpur), which was registered crime no. 23 of 1991, relating to offences punishable under section395 and 397 I.P.C. In that final report it is also mentioned that one 3 revolver and one pistol were also found near the bodies after their death, with live cartridges. (3) On the other hand it appears that present revisionist Abbas came with the different story of the incident alleging that two police constables namely Megh singh(petitioner no.3) and constable Rajkumar (petitioner no.4) took the two deceased to village Mannuwas and got killed them at the hand of the villagers. It appears that the report of the present revisionist was registered only after orders were passed by the Magistrate on application moved under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On the basis of said application moved in 1995 (i.e. four years after the incident) under order of the Magistrate crime no. 38A was registered, relating to offences punishable under section 394 and 302 I.P.C against the respondent no. 3 to 8 with Police Station, Bhagwanpur on 30.03.1996. After investigation the police submitted final report holding that no substance was found in the allegation made in the F.I.R. It is further observed that in respect of the two deaths the police has earlier filed the final report in crime no. 38 of 1991. (4) It appears that on the final report submitted in respect of crime no. 38A which was registered in 1995, the Magistrate issued notices to the complainant (present revisionist), who filed protest petition before the Magistrate. After hearing the complainant and going 4 through the case diary, Additional Chief Judicial, Magistrate, Roorkee, vide order dated 27.11.2001 summoned the respondent no. 3 to 8 to face the trial, in respect of offences punishable under section 394 and 302 I.P.C. Aggrieved by said order respondents Kushalpal Singh, Ratan Lal, Molhu Singh and Constable Megh Singh, Mahender Singh filed criminal revision no 442 of 2002. The revisional court (Sessions Judge, Haridwar) after hearing the parties set aside the order dated 27.11.2001, and directed the Chief Judicial, Magistrate Haridwar, to pass fresh orders on the protest petition moved by the revisionist. Hence this revision before this court. Though second revision is maintainable by same party but the revision against the order of revisional court is maintainable if filed by other than the revisionist of first revision. (5) Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisional court has erred in law in setting aside the summoning order passed by the Magistrate, and there was no illegality in the order challenged before the revisional court. It is pleaded that one of the deceased was not a history sheeter. It is also pleaded that there was no injury on the side of the villagers of Mannuwas. Lastly, it is pleaded that since the complainant had supported the story mentioned in the first information report, got lodged under 5 section 154(3) of Cr.P.C, there was no occassion for the revisional court to set aside the summoning order. (6) However, some facts in the present case are relevant to be mentioned. The deceased were of the District of Muzaffarnagar. It is not clear that as to how they happened to be in the village where the incident is said to have taken place. There are cross versions of the incident. One version has already been accepted by the police, according to it the deceased were dacoits and they were killed by the public. The story with which the present revisionist has come is that on being asked by two constables the villagers killed the deceased. It is relevant to mention that when the villagers have no enmity with the deceased how they have killed them. The witnesses of incident which are mentioned in the protest petition are residents of different places e.g. Habib belong to village Jhidyan Grant, witness Jamal belong to village Fatehpur, witness Sehzad Ali and Ayyub Ali belong to village Dadubas, and witness Nasim and Ikbal belongs to Charthawal(Disrict Muzaffarnagar). It is not clear as to how these persons in the intervening night of 27 and 28 of March 1991 reached within the limits of village Mannuwas to witness the incident. (7) In the above circumstances, this court does not find any error of law committed by the revisional court in 6 setting aside the summoning order passed by the Magistrate. It is also pertinent to mention here that revisional court has simply remanded to examine the matter and pass fresh orders . As such the impugned order in the opinion of this court does not suffer from any illegality. (8) Accordingly, the revision is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.26.04.2010 NP