RAM DAI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. -
(1.) BY means of present petition/application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash the impugned order date 21.11.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTCIV, Haridwar, in Criminal Revision No. 333 of 2009, Jagjeevan Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 moved an application before the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for directing the police station concerned to lodge a first information report against the applicants. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, District Haridwar, vide order dated 16.09.2009. Aggrieved against the said order, respondent No. 2 preferred a Criminal Revision, which was partly allowed, vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.11.2009. The matter was remitted back to learned Magistrate to decide the matter in view of the observations made therein. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.11.2009, present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was moved. The sole grievance of the applicants is that learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order without affording an opportunity of hearing to them, which was in violation of Section 399(2) of Cr.P.C., wherein it is stated that no order under this Section shall be made to the prejudice of accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. This fact is under no dispute that the applicants were not made a party in the criminal revision No. 333 of 2009, and the impugned order was passed only after haring learned D.G.C. (Criminal).
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants placed reliance upon the rulings of Chandra Deo Singh vs. Prokash Chandra Bose and another, : (1964) (1) SCR 639; Vadilal Panchal vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Chadigaonker and another, : (1961) 1 SCR 1; P. Sundarrajan and others vs. R. Vidhya Sekar, (2004) 13 SCC 472; A.N. Santhanam vs. K.E. and Langovan : 2011 (2) JCC 720 (SC; Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Limited and another, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 801 and Manharibhhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors., : 2013 (1) N.C.C. 168 SC in support of his contention, wherein it was held that not only an accused, but also an affected person (prejudiced) is required to be heard by a Revision Court.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.