Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26913 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14907 of 2024 Petitioner :- Manju Respondent :- State Of Up And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA. 2. The instant petition has been preferred with a prayer to quash the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar in Criminal Revision No.295 of 2024. 3. It is the case of petitioner that she moved a complaint before learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Bulandshahar with regard to incident dated 13.03.2023 which was registered as Complaint No.389 of 2023 wherein petitioner recorded her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses, namely Geeta and Vikas recorded their statements under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as P.W.-1 and P.W.2 respectively. After considering the narration available in the complaint and statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., learned court concerned summoned respondent nos.2 to 8 vide order dated 16.12.2023, under Section 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC. 4. Being aggrieved with the summoning order dated 16.12.2023, private respondents preferred Criminal Revision No.295 of 2024 before learned revisional court which was allowed vide order dated 25.09.2024 by way of remanding the matter back to the concerned court to pass an order afresh in light of the observations made in the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned revisional court which impugned the present petition. 5. While challenging the order dated 25.09.2024, learned counsel for petitioner argued that after considering the averments mentioned in the complaint preferred at the behest of petitioner and statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, learned court concerned rightly summoned the private respondents. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the offence committed by the accused persons, is a cognizable one but without recording any absolute findings, learned revisional court set aside the summoning order while adjudicating the criminal revision preferred at the behest of private respondents and remanded the matter back to the learned court concerned to decide afresh in light of the observations made therein. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that there are sufficient evidences against the private respondents and as such, order passed by learned revisional court is in violation of principles enunciated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in several verdicts. Learned counsel for petitioner also sought attention of the Court towards impugned order wherein learned revisional court returned with the finding that prima facie, no crime seems to be committed by private respondents. 6. Per contra, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition on the ground that the impugned order has been passed after considering the material available on record which is just and proper. It has also been argued by learned AGA that by way of passing the impugned order, learned revisional court remanded the matter back to the concerned court to decide afresh and as such, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 7. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for both parties, order dated 25.09.2024 is modified only to the extent that learned court concerned shall pass fresh order without being influenced with the observations made in the order impugned and the same shall be passed independently on the basis of material available on records as well as in light of decisions made by Hon'ble the Apex Court. 8. In view thereof, this petition stands disposed of. 9. However, it is made clear that fresh order will be passed by learned court concerned as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before it. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad