- (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer that the judgment and order dated 19.08.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Revision No.220 of 2011 be quashed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, which was treated as a complaint case. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after following procedure of the complaint case dismissed the complaint on the ground that on the basis of the material on record, there is no sufficient evidence to summon the opposite party no.2 to face trial.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the rejection of complaint, the opposite party no.2 preferred a criminal revision being criminal revision No.220 of 2011, which was heard and disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge Ambedkar Nagar who dismissed the same vide judgment and order dated 19.08.2013. From the perusal of the judgment, it reflects that the criminal revision aforesaid was fixed for hearing on 19.08.2013, but since the lawyers were not attending the court on account of some resolution of the Bar Association, learned Sessions Judge proceeded to decide the revision only after hearing the arguments on behalf of the State. Thereafter, on the basis of the material on record and arguments advanced on behalf of the State, learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision and quashed the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing the impugned order on 28.09.2011 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the opposite party no.2 preferred a criminal revision, in which the petitioner was also impleaded as one of the opposite party, but the learned revisional court without giving him opportunity of hearing proceeded to decide the revision and allowed the same by passing the impugned judgment and order. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is clear from the impugned judgment itself that the lawyers of District Ambedkar Nagar were not attending the sessions court since 24.07.2013 and as such the petitioner's counsel could not appear and argue the revision on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 401 of Cr.P.C., which provides that no order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. Learned Magistrate by passing the summoning order dated 28.09.2011 had taken cognizance and as such the petitioner being complainant of the case had a right to be heard in revision.;