BABA @ BABURAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42495 of 2025

Baba @ Baburam
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :    Shaili Ganguly
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :    G.A., Mohd. Irfan

Court No. - 81
                   HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

1. Learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 8 and learned AGA for the
State are present.

2. None appeared to press this application on behalf of the applicant, today
in the Court, even in the revised call.

3. This application u/s 528 BNSS has been preferred by the applicant with
prayer to quash the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Special
Judge(SC/ST Act), Rampur, in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2025(Bharat
Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another), under sections 323, 504, 506,
IPC, Police Station Bhot, District Rampur, whereby the revision moved by
the opposite party nos.2 to 8 against the summoning order dated 27.10.2023,
passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division)/FTC, Rampur, in Complaint
Case No.139 of 2022(Baba @ Baburam Vs. Dinesh and Others) was allowed
and set-aside the summoning order dated 27.10.2023 and remanded the
matter to the trial court to decide the matter afresh in the light of the
observation made by the revisional court, in its impugned order dated
11.09.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 8 submitted that the
applicant in the present application is the complainant of Complaint Case
No.139 of 2022(Baba @ Baburam Vs. Dinesh and Others), under sections
323, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Bhot, District Rampur. The present
                                                       NA528 No. 42495 of 2025
                                2


application has been moved before this Court by the applicant/complainant
after being aggrieved by order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned
Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Rampur, in Criminal Revision No.56 of
2025(Bharat Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another), under sections
323, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Bhot, District Rampur, by which the
learned revisional court allowed the revision filed by the opposite party no.2
to 8 against the summoning order dated 27.10.2023, passed by learned Civil
Judge(Junior Division)/FTC, Rampur, in Complaint Case No.139 of
2022(Baba @ Baburam Vs. Dinesh and Others) and set-aside the
summoning order dated 27.10.2023 and remanded the matter to the trial
court to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observation made by the
revisional court in its impugned order dated 11.09.2025, hence present
application is maintainable.

5. Perusal of record shows that, an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was filed by the applicant/complainant before the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, Rampur on 17.06.2022, which was subsequently registered as
Complaint Case No.139 of 2022(Baba @ Baburam Vs. Dinesh and Others).
Thereafter, as per the direction of the trial court, statements of the
applicant/complainant as well as the witnesses were recorded under sections
200 and 202 Cr.P.C., respectively and on the basis of the said statements
learned trial court summoned the opposite party no.2 to 7 vide order dated
27.10.2023 as an accused to face trial, on the ground that there is
prosecutable evidence against the said accused persons.

6. Being aggrieved with the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the trial court,
the opposite party nos.2 to 8 preferred the revision before the revisional
court i.e. learned Special Judge(SC/ST) Act, Rampur, which was registered
as Criminal Revision No.56 of 2025(Bharat Singh & Others Vs. State of
U.P. & Another), under sections 323, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Bhot,
District Rampur, and the same was allowed by the learned revisional court
and the matter was remanded to the trial court concerned to decide the
                                                            NA528 No. 42495 of 2025
                                  3


matter afresh in the light of the observation made by the revisional court in
its impugned order dated 11.09.2025.

7. Learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite
party nos.2 to 8 have opposed the prayer made in the present application and
submitted that the learned revisional court has rightly passed the impugned
order dated 11.09.2025 by setting-aside the order dated 27.10.2023 passed
by the trial court, on the ground that the material available on record shows
that that the order dated 27.10.2023 of trial was erroneous and incorrect and
thereby required the interference of the revisional court and remanded the
matter to the trial court with the direction to pass a fresh order in view of the
opinion expressed by the revisional court in its order dated 11.09.2025.
Hence, no interference is required by this Court also and the application is
liable to be dismissed.

8. Heard Mohd. Irfan, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 8, Sri
Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought
on record.

9. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 11.09.2025, which is
under challenge is being reproduced herein below:-

"विद्वान अवर न्यायालय को निदेशित किया जाता है कि इस निर्णय में व्यक्त किये गये मत के
आलोक में, पुन सुनकर तथा पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्य के सम्यक परिशीलन के उपरान्त, नवीन
आदेश पारित करना सुनिश्चित करें।"

10. Perusal of the aforesaid direction that has been made by the learned
revisional court in its order dated 11.09.2025, it is quite apparent that the
learned revisional court has remanded the matter to the trial court after
setting aside the summoning order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the learned
trial court, by which the opposite party nos.2 to 8, in the present application,
have been summoned to face trial, as an accused. The applicant in the
present case, who is also the complainant before the trial court had every
opportunity to argue the matter before the trial court, as the matter has been
remanded to the trial court, however, instead of availing the opportunity to
                                                                                            NA528 No. 42495 of 2025
                                                                    4


                                    re-argue the matter before the trial court, as directed vide impugned order
                                    dated 11.09.2025, the applicant/complainant has approached this Court,
                                    seeking interference by this Court, under section 528 BNSS, with a prayer to
                                    set-aside the order dated 11.09.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge
                                    (SC/ST Act), Rampur, in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2025(Bharat Singh &
                                    Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another), under sections 323, 504, 506, IPC,
                                    Police Station Bhot, District Rampur. The order dated 11.09.2025 itself
                                    shows that the matter has sub-judice before the learned trial court and no
                                    final order has been passed by the learned revisional court. Despite the fact,
                                    that the matter has been remanded to the learned trial court with direction for
                                    re-hearing the matter afresh, the applicant/complainant did not approach the
                                    trial court, in compliance of the order of revisional court rather directly
                                    approached this Court, seeking direction to set-aside the order of remand
                                    passed by the revisional court, he himself committed an abuse of process of
                                    law disregarding the remedy that has already been provided to the applicant.

                                    11. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order does not constitute
                                    the abuse of the process of the court. The order of the revisional court is
                                    followed by the procedural aspects as incorporated in the Cr.P.C./BNSS and
                                    there is no apparent evidence, which shows that the revisional court has
                                    committed any error or abuse of the process of the court, therefore, the
                                    interference of this Court in the present case is unwarranted and thus the
                                    present application is liable to be dismissed with an exemplary cost of
                                    Rs.10,000/-.

                                    12. Accordingly, the present application U/s 528 Cr.P.C. moved by the
                                    applicant is hereby dismissed, with the cost of Rs.10,000/-

                                    April 23, 2026
                                    VKG
                                                                                              (Achal Sachdev,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad