SHARAVAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State of Uttaranchal and others
Click here to view full judgement.
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. -
(1.) BY means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. a prayer has been made to quash the judgment and order dated 18.10.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar while adjudicating Criminal Revision No. 354 of 2006. It is pertinent to mention that private respondents No. 2 to 4 have been served sufficiently but none has turned up on their behalf, so this Court has rendered hearing to Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Brief Holder for the State. Background facts of the case are that petitioner Sharavan Singh moved an application before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking for registration and investigation of a case pertaining to criminal incident happened with him on 03.09.2006 allegedly committed by private respondent nos. 2 to 4. Learned Magistrate directed the police concerned to register a case in appropriate sections of the Indian Penal Code and investigate the same. Police accordingly registered a case and started investigation, which ended in submission of charge sheet dated 05.10.2006 for the offence under Section 356, 504, 506 IPC against the private respondents No. 2 to 4.
(2.) AFTER registration of the case at Police Station Kashmir Singh (respondent No. 2) and his two associates filed a criminal revision No. 354 of 2006 in the court of Sessions Judge, Haridwar which was adjudicated on 18.10.2006 in affirmation and the order dated 13.09.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was set aside. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has come up through this petition before this Court. If the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge is permitted to persist that would have made the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 13.09.2006 inoperative. But the fact remains that pursuant to the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, case was registered and after investigation by the police, charge sheet has been submitted against the accused persons on 05.10.2006 i.e. before the revision was adjudicated by the learned Sessions Judge. Besides, of late Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. reported in : 2011 CRi LJ 2278 has laid down that revision against the order of Magistrate passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. It is an interlocutory order and remedy of revision is barred against such order under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. In view of the above, this petition has force and deserves to be allowed. The petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 354 of 2006 is hereby quashed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.