Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.@mdashBy filing instant criminal Misc. petition the complainant petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.3.2006 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Baran (for short "the revisional Court") passed in Criminal Revision No. 5/2006 (82/2005) by which he set-aside the order of cognizance dated 8.12.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, Mangrol District Baran (for short "trial Court'') in Criminal Case No. 53/2005 and remanded the matter for hearing afresh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant petitioner filed a complaint before trial Court against the accused respondent to this effect that entered into the conspiracy with the officials of Government Primary School, Jetalhedi. He further stated that the accused respondent filed a false application before the District Collector and District Election Officer, Baran stating therein that the petitioner is having three children and his third child was born was after 1995. He further mentioned in the complaint that accused respondent submitted a certificate issued by the Govt. Primary School, Jetalhedi, Panchayat Samiti Anta in which he has mentioned the date of birth of his third child as 19th Feb. 1996. Certain other facts were also mentioned.
3. The trial Court after hearing both the parties took cognizance against the accused respondent for the offence Under Sections 466, 468, 471 IPC vide order dt. 8.12.2005.
4. The accused petitioner being aggrieved with the order of cognizance dated 8.12.2005, preferred a revision petition before the revisional court.
5. The revisional Court after hearing both the parties, quashed the order of cognizance dated 8.12.2005 and remanded the matter to the Court below to pass an order after making comparison of the writing of accused respondent in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.
6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the order passed by revisional Court has preferred instant misc. petition before this Court.
7. Mr. Gupta, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court while passing the impugned order has failed to consider the facts and material available on record. The revisional court has wrongly directed the trial court to first examine the document Ex.P/3. Thus, the order impugned is illegal and liable to be quashed and set-aside.
8. Per-contra Mr. B.N. Sandhu, Public Prosecutor vehemently controverted the afore-said arguments and submit that the revisional court has rightly passed the order impugned.
9. I have heard Counsel for both the parties and carefully perused the entire material available on record.
10. From the material available on record it is clear that the revisional court has rightly quashed the order and remanded the matter to the trial Court vide order dated 8.3.2006 and it has committed no illegality and Irregularity In passing the same.
11. In the result, this misc. petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial in accordance with law.
