Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner has challenged the revisional order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal, dated 25-6-1991, whereby he upset the order of the learned trial Magistrate, dated, 4-5-1991, summoning Respondents Nos.2 to 11 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) as accused persons after recording the statement of the complainant on his application under section 190, Cr.P.C
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner got registered a case under section 448/336/149 148 P.P.C. At Police Station Phularwan, vide F.I.R. No.42 dated 19-3-1988 against the respondents as well as their co-accused, who were challaned, whereas the respondents were found innocent during the investigation.
3. The trial Court on 29-9-1990, after recording the statement of the complainant dismissed his application moved through the Public Prosecutor under section 190, Cr.P.C. Of summoning the respondents as accused persons A vide his order, dated 12-1.1-1990. The aforesaid order was challenged in revision which too was dismissed vide order, dated 21-2-1991 but in that order' the revisional Court observed that the statement of the complainant initially taken was not in accordance with law as it was not in the handwriting of the trial Magistrate.
4. It appears from the record that after the observation of the revisional Court, the same learned Magistrate again examined the petitioner on 4-5-1991 and after the close of examination-in-chief, the complainant through the Public Prosecutor moved another application under section 190, Cr.P.C. For summoning the respondents as accused persons. This petition was accepted vide order, dated 4-5-1991. The said order was challenged by the respondents in revisional jurisdiction and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order, set aside the order, dated 4-5-1991; hence the present Constitutional petition.
5. Learned counsel has contended that the learned trial Magistrate on proper appreciation of facts and law came to the conclusion that the respondents who were found innocent by the police should stand their trial before him as there was sufficient material on the record to connect them with the crime, hence the impugned order is void and without jurisdiction. He further submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate suffered from no factual or legal infirmity.
6. I have heard the learned counsel at length. From .The perusal of the, impugned order, I find that the revisional Court, which had the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the revision on proper appreciation of facts and law, came to the conclusion that the finding of the police was based on proper, material, hence it was not open to any serious legal objection. In addition to that, the same learned Magistrate earlier dismissed the petition of the complainant and that order was maintained in the revisional jurisdiction previously, then that very learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction under the law to review his own order passed under section 190, Cr.P.C. Due to the embargo contained in the said Code. This Court can only interfere in the order of a Court of exclusive jurisdiction, if the order suffers from jurisdictional defect or patent illegality. Both these conditions are not available to the petitioner in the present Constitutional petition; hence this petition is devoid of any legal force and is dismissed in limeline.