VINITA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Alok Singh, J. -
(1.) FOR the reasons stated in the application, counter affidavit, filed on behalf of legal heirs of respondent No. 2, is taken on record.
(2.) CRMA No. 568 of 2013 stands disposed of accordingly.
C -482 No. 1353 of 2012
Undisputedly, complaint filed by the respondent No. 2, being complaint case No. 753 of 2012, was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, on 3.7.2012. Against the order dated 3.7.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, refusing to summon the accused to face trial, a revision was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, being criminal revision No. 168 of 2012. Learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 21.9.2012, was pleased to set aside the order of the Magistrate, and to remand the case to the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order dated 26.10.2012, thereby summoning the applicants to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C.
(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , learned Sessions Judge, without hearing the accused, has allowed the revision filed by the complainant. It is now settled position of law that if learned Magistrate refuses to summon the accused on a private complaint, revision can be filed challenging the order of the Magistrate. However, learned, revisional court must hear the accused before setting aside the order of the Magistrate and remanding the matter to the learned Magistrate. [Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others, reported in : (2012) 10 S.C.C. 517].;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.