Ram Gopal v. State of U.P. and other) is hereby set-aside

Heard Gaurav Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri N.I. Jafri Advocate assisted by Sri Prakash Veer Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record. The present criminal revisionist has been filed with a prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2024 passed by Ist Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Basti in Criminal Revision No.11 of 2022 (State vs. Dr. Shah Alam). Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that present revision has been filed against the order dated 09.01.2024 by which revision filed by the opposite party no. 2 herein has been allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basti by setting aside the order dated 22.10.2021 by learned Judicial Magistrate/FTC, Basti (Crime Against Women) and learned Additional Sessions Judge remanded the matter to the concerned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that prior to the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate and thereafter order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision by impugned order dated 09.01.2024, the opposite party no. 2 has taken the matter to legal course by moving an application under section 216 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate, stating therein that apart from the offence, no offence under sections 376 and 511 IPC is made out against the revisionist and Judicial Magistrate passed the order dated 11.08.2015. Aggrieved by the said order dated 11.08.2015, the opposite party no.2 moved a revision before the 2 CRLR No. 1953 of 2024 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basti. After hearing the said revision, the learned Additional Session Judge passed an order by remanding the matter to the concerned Magistrate. However, the revisionist herein preferred to challenge the said order by moving a Criminal Revision No. 1127 of 2016. After hearing the parties, this Court has passed the following order: " In view of above, order passed by the revisionist court in against law, which is not sustainable. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 05.03.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 219 of 2015 (Ram Gopal Vs. State of U.P. and other) is hereby set-aside." Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 aggrieved by the said order, moved an SLP (Criminal) No. 7206 of 2018. However, the said SLP was withdrawn by opposite party no. 2 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order: "The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this Special Leave Petition with liberty to raise the question at an appropriate stage before appropriate forum. Statement is placed on record. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn." Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that so far as the matter was taken up earlier in the year 2015-16, said litigation has been drawn up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and subsequent to the order of the Supreme Court dated 11.03.2019 against which an application has been moved on behalf of the State but not by the petitioner, i.e., the opposite party no. 2 herein. A final order dated 09.01.2024 has bee passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basti against which present revision has been filed. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that so far as the second round of the litigation is concerned, the subject matter pertains is one and same incident, i.e., the incident, which has occurred on 17.01.2009, no further development whatsoever, has taken place. So far as these allegations made in the FIR, are concerned, learned counsel for the revisionist emphasized that pursuant to the lodging of the said FIR No. 2188 of 2016 under sections 354 and 506 IPC, no other allegations have been levelled against the revisionist with regard to any incident whatsoever. 3 CRLR No. 1953 of 2024 Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that trial in the said criminal case no. 288 of 2009 is in progress, as well as three witnesses have been examined. The opposite party no. 2 is dragging the matter before the trial Court for no reasons and on the second occasion, rather than filing an application under section 216 Cr.P.C., liberty which was given to revisionist but he did not take matter to the legal course. However, second application under section 216 Cr.P.C. read with section 320 IPC has been moved on behalf of the State whereas no such liberty was given to the State to hear afresh. Learned counsel for the revisionist also emphasized that no body can file twice applications for the same offence and filing an application whatever is noting, but harassment to the revisionist, whereas the matter has already come to its legal course and trial is going on and prayed that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 09.01.2024 is liable to be quashed. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that opposite party no. 2, the petitioner in said SLP referred herein has taken liberty to take up the matter at appropriate stage before appropriate forum and there is no difference, if the matter has been taken to legal course by the State, rather by the petitioner, then it was pursuant to the application under section 216 Cr.P.C. filed by the State, that an order dated 22.10.2011 was passed by the Judicial Magistrate and revision in respect of the order dated

22.10.2021 was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basti vide order dated 09.01.2024 and submitted that there is no illegality whatsoever in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and further prays that, this revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is the matter of record and fact that second application which has been moved on behalf of the State pertains to one and same incident for which trial is already in progress and as far as three witnesses have already been examined, apart from that the matter pertaining to the same incident, came up before this Court, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties this Court passed the following order : " In view of above, order passed by the revisionist court in against law, which is not sustainable. 4 CRLR No. 1953 of 2024 Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 05.03.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 219 of 2015 (Ram Gopal Vs. State of U.P. and other) is hereby set-aside." Moreover, the revisionist has submitted that even if said offence as allegedly committed by the revisionist, the trial is under going and for the same, the revisionist is facing trial to the same offence as alleged by the victim. It is matter of record and fact that during the course of the trial, the victim and other witnesses have already adduced the evidence, whatever available in support thereof and revisionist has already appeared to cross-examine, but no other is available with revisionist at this stage and trial is going on, therefore, the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basti and same is liable to be set-aside. Thus, the revision is accordingly allowed. At this stage, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that liberty be given to the revisionist to take the matter to its logical ends in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court. However, on this aspect, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that any matter, cannot be permitted to proceed twice and therefore, two applications have already been moved one by opposite party another by State on the similar allegations, hence there has to be an end to litigation when there is some litigation going on apart from that trial in respect of the offence as allegedly committed by the revisionist herein hence no such ground is available to the revisionist, to take up the matter again, same prayer is hereby rejected. September 26, 2025 Monika (Harvir Singh,J.) MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Gaurav Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri N.I. Jafri Advocate assisted by Sri Prakash Veer Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record. The present criminal revisionist has been filed with a prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2024 passed by Ist Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Basti in Criminal Revision No.11 of 2022 (State vs. Dr. Shah Alam). Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that present revision has been filed against the order dated 09.01.2024 by which revision filed by the opposite party no. 2 herein has been allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basti by setting aside the order dated 22.10.2021 by learned Judicial Magistrate/FTC, Basti (Crime Against Women) and learned Additional Sessions Judge remanded the matter to the concerned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that prior to the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate and thereafter order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision by impugned order dated 09.01.2024, the opposite party no. 2 has taken the matter to legal course by moving an application under section 216 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate, stating therein that apart from the offence, no offence under sections 376 and 511 IPC is made out against the revisionist and Judicial Magistrate passed the order dated 11.08.2015. Aggrieved by the said order dated 11.08.2015, the opposite party no.2 moved a revision before the 2 CRLR No. 1953 of 2024 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basti. After hearing the said revision, the learned Additional Session Judge passed an order by remanding the matter to the concerned Magistrate. However, the revisionist herein preferred to challenge the said order by moving a Criminal Revision No. 1127 of 2016. After hearing the parties, this Court has passed the following order: " In view of above, order passed by the revisionist court in against law, which is not sustainable. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 05.03.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 219 of 2015 (Ram Gopal Vs. State of U.P. and other) is hereby set-aside." Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 aggrieved by the said order, moved an SLP (Criminal) No. 7206 of 2018. However, the said SLP was withdrawn by opposite party no. 2 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order: "The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this Special Leave Petition with liberty to raise the question at an appropriate stage before appropriate forum. Statement is placed on record. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn." Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that so far as the matter was taken up earlier in the year 2015-16, said litigation has been drawn up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and subsequent to the order of the Supreme Court dated 11.03.2019 against which an application has been moved on behalf of the State but not by the petitioner, i.e., the opposite party no. 2 herein. A final order dated 09.01.2024 has bee passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basti against which present revision has been filed. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that so far as the second round of the litigation is concerned, the subject matter pertains is one and same incident, i.e., the incident, which has occurred on 17.01.2009, no further development whatsoever, has taken place. So far as these allegations made in the FIR, are concerned, learned counsel for the revisionist emphasized that pursuant to the lodging of the said FIR No. 2188 of 2016 under sections 354 and 506 IPC, no other allegations have been levelled against the revisionist with regard to any incident whatsoever. 3 CRLR No. 1953 of 2024 Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that trial in the said criminal case no. 288 of 2009 is in progress, as well as three witnesses have been examined. The opposite party no. 2 is dragging the matter before the trial Court for no reasons and on the second occasion, rather than filing an application under section 216 Cr.P.C., liberty which was given to revisionist but he did not take matter to the legal course. However, second application under section 216 Cr.P.C. read with section 320 IPC has been moved on behalf of the State whereas no such liberty was given to the State to hear afresh. Learned counsel for the revisionist also emphasized that no body can file twice applications for the same offence and filing an application whatever is noting, but harassment to the revisionist, whereas the matter has already come to its legal course and trial is going on and prayed that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 09.01.2024 is liable to be quashed. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that opposite party no. 2, the petitioner in said SLP referred herein has taken liberty to take up the matter at appropriate stage before appropriate forum and there is no difference, if the matter has been taken to legal course by the State, rather by the petitioner, then it was pursuant to the application under section 216 Cr.P.C. filed by the State, that an order dated 22.10.2011 was passed by the Judicial Magistrate and revision in respect of the order dated

22.10.2021 was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basti vide order dated 09.01.2024 and submitted that there is no illegality whatsoever in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and further prays that, this revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is the matter of record and fact that second application which has been moved on behalf of the State pertains to one and same incident for which trial is already in progress and as far as three witnesses have already been examined, apart from that the matter pertaining to the same incident, came up before this Court, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties this Court passed the following order : " In view of above, order passed by the revisionist court in against law, which is not sustainable. 4 CRLR No. 1953 of 2024 Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 05.03.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 219 of 2015 (Ram Gopal Vs. State of U.P. and other) is hereby set-aside." Moreover, the revisionist has submitted that even if said offence as allegedly committed by the revisionist, the trial is under going and for the same, the revisionist is facing trial to the same offence as alleged by the victim. It is matter of record and fact that during the course of the trial, the victim and other witnesses have already adduced the evidence, whatever available in support thereof and revisionist has already appeared to cross-examine, but no other is available with revisionist at this stage and trial is going on, therefore, the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basti and same is liable to be set-aside. Thus, the revision is accordingly allowed. At this stage, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that liberty be given to the revisionist to take the matter to its logical ends in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court. However, on this aspect, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that any matter, cannot be permitted to proceed twice and therefore, two applications have already been moved one by opposite party another by State on the similar allegations, hence there has to be an end to litigation when there is some litigation going on apart from that trial in respect of the offence as allegedly committed by the revisionist herein hence no such ground is available to the revisionist, to take up the matter again, same prayer is hereby rejected. September 26, 2025 Monika (Harvir Singh,J.) MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad