TEJ PAL AND OTHERS Vs. RAJU
LAWS(UTN)-2013-9-53
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 06,2013

Tej Pal And Others Appellant
VERSUS
RAJU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By way of present application / petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash the order dated 15.09.2008, passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in criminal revision no. 379 of 2008, Raju vs State as well as consequential order dated 11.11.2008, passed by I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in criminal case no. 386 of 2007, Raju vs Tejpal and others, under Sections 323, 324, 506 of IPC and the one under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
(2.) Complainant-Respondent filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in the court of I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, who after hearing the complainant-respondent found that no case was made out against the applicants and dismissed the application filed by the complainant-respondent, vide order dated 19.10.2004. Aggrieved against said order, respondent filed a criminal revision before Sessions Judge, Haridwar, who allowed the criminal revision and remanded the matter with the direction upon learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in accordance with law. Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, thereafter directed the Station Officer concerned to lodge the FIR against the applicants, vide order dated 08.02.2005. Station Officer, Pathri lodged a FIR on 20.02.2005. Investigating Officer investigated the case and submitted final report in the matter. The complainant-respondent filed objections against filing of final report. Learned Judicial Magistrate after hearing the objections on final report, passed the order converting the application into a complaint case and proceeded to record statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate found that no case was made out against the applicants in respect of offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and summoned them under Sections 323, 324, 504 of IPC. Aggrieved against the said order dated 15.07.2008, respondent filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar, who transferred the case to Addl. Sessions Judge / III F.T.C., Haridwar. Learned revision court remanded the matter to the lower court to reconsider the complaint under the provisions of S.C.S.T. Act and pass a fresh order. The present applicants were not impleaded as respondents in the said revision. Criminal revision was decided without calling upon the applicants to advance their arguments. According to the applicants impugned order dated 15.09.2008 is contrary to law and should, therefore, be quashed. Feeling aggrieved, applicants challenged the said order dated 15.09.2008, by filing present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court.
(3.) The sole grievance of the applicants is that learned Addl. 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. 379 of 2008, and the impugned order was passed only after hearing learned A.D.G.C. (Criminal).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.