Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. - (1.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Meerut in Criminal Revision No.281 of 2017 as well as the entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 6651 of 2016 (Akash Jain Vs. Ramesh Chand & others) under Sections 406, 420, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Lal Kurti, District Meerut pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.5, Meerut and quash the impugned consequential summoning order dated 19.09.2017 passed by the ACJM, Court No.5, Meerut under Sections 420, 406, 120B I.P.C.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the complaint filed agianst the accused was dismissed on 12.05.2017 under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by the court below. Aggrieved by that order a revision was filed in the lower Revisional Court, where the Court set aside the order passed by the Magistrate and allowed the revision without affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant. There is nothing on record to indicate that the notices that issued to accused, were served upon them at all. The impugned order passed by the lower Revision Court does not contain any finding as to what fate attended the notices that were issued to the accused. Whether they remained unserved or whether the service to the accused was presumed under law to have been effected by the Court under certain circumstances or facts as they might have been. Contention is that there is no finding given in the impugned judgment that the notices were served or that the accused or their legal representatives did not appear in the Court despite service. It has been submitted by the counsel claiming it to be a matter of fact that notices were never served upon the accused and it has been contended that the accused did not have any knowledge about the proceedings that were going on against them in the lower Revisional Court at their back. Submission is that this course adopted by lower Revisional Court was against the law of the land. The Revisional Court ought to have proceeded only after affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant-accused. Counsel in this regard has placed reliance upon provision of Section 401 sub Clause 2 of Cr.P.C. in this regard. Submission is that the subsequent order of the Magistrate in compliance with the lower Revisional Court order also therefore stands vitiated whereby the applicant-accused has been summoned to face the trial.;