Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27690 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3828 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Shankar Dwivedi And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Soni Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Mr. Manish Soni, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of the present application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (482 Cr.P.C.) the applicants have challenged the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Unnao in Criminal Revision No. 199 of 2024 wherein the revision filed by the opposite party no. 2 has been allowed and the matter has been remitted to the trial court to pass orders afresh. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that opposite party no. 2 had lodged an FIR No. 142 of 2019, under Sections 147, 379 and 504 IPC, Police station Hassanganj, District Unnao on 04.05.2019 wherein the applicants have been shown to be an accused and the incident pertain to 21.04.2019. It is stated that according to the allegations levelled by opposite party no. 2 in the said FIR that it was a property dispute pertaining to Gata No. 19/0.9230 hectare and Gata No. 22 Ka/0.9740 situated at Village Dhaura, Pargana Mohan Tehsil Hasanganj District Unnao. It has further been stated that the after the investigation concluded, the police did not find occurrence of cognizable offence and accordingly a final report was filed before the competent court. Against the said final report, objections were filed by opposite party no. 2 on 01.12.2022. It is on the protest petition filed by opposite party no. 2 that the trial court has treated the same as complaint case and recorded statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. On account of the fact that opposite party no. 2 did not appear on 04.09.2023 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Unnao that the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. Against the order dated 04.09.2024, opposite party no. 2 had filed a revision before the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 4 but after considering the entire material and also the fact that due to certain reasons, the counsel could not appear before the court concerned and also considered the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya & Anr. vs S.N. Thakur And Anr. reported in 1986 SCC (CRI) 249, he has set aside the order dated 04.09.2024 and remitted the matter back for passing the fresh orders. 4. The only ground urged by learned counsel for applicants is that institution of the proceedings by opposite party no. 2 is mala fide and caused gross harassment to the applicants. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State had opposed the application and does not dispute the aforesaid fact. Apart from the above, it is stated that the applicants cannot claim themselves to a person aggrieved, inasmuch as, no orders have been passed by the trial court summoning the applicants and till such time the summoning orders issued, the applicants cannot be aggrieved by the complaint preferred by opposite party no. 2 and at this stage, they do not have any right or claim before the trial court. 6. After hearing learned counsel for parties, it is noticed that revisional court has only reinstated the proceedings before the trial court for consideration afresh and has not passed any orders on merits. While passing the said orders, the trial court has duly looked into the statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. and also considered the fact that it is only on account of the non appearance of counsel for opposite party no. 2 that the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, he has rightly relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya (supra) wherein in such circumstances, the matter deserves to be remitted to the trial court for consideration afresh. Apart from the above, this Court finds that the applicants cannot be aggrieved, inasmuch as it is only in the remand proceedings that the appropriate orders will be passed by the trial court either rejecting the complaint preferred by opposite party no. 2 or if he is satisfied about the occurrence of cognizable offence as per the material on record, he would issue the summoning orders. It is only at that stage, the applicants can put in appearance and filed objections. Prior to issuing summons, his case cannot be considered either by trial court or any other court. Apart from above, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court. 8. In light of the above, this application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (482 Cr.P.C.) being devoid of merits is dismissed. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench