- (1.) THIS criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Sections 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here­inafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is di­rected against the judgment and order dated 03.06.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Hardwar in Criminal Revision No.281 of 2005, Pradeep Paliwal and oth­ers Vs. State of Uttaranchal, whereby the revision preferred by respondent Nos.2 to 5 has been allowed and judgment and or­der dated 1.9.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar has been set aside.
(2.) HEARD Sri S.K. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv: assisted by Sri Tapan Singh, Adv. for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No. 1, Sri U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv. assisted by Sri Sandeep Kothari, Adv. for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 and perused the entire mate­rial available on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that revisionist-Ravi Chaudhary had filed a case of injunction against the respondents-Sanjay Paliwal and others in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hardwar regarding Plot No. 15 situated in New Hardwar in which the Civil Judge (S.D.) had passed injunction order in favour of the revisionist and against the respond­ents. On 5.7.2003 at about 1:30 P.M. the respondents along with their accomplice came over the land in dispute and caused injuries to Pradeep singh and Gajraj Singh with fists and kicks with the intention to kill them. It was further stated that re­spondents/accused persons Bittoo Paliwal and Pradeep Paliwal also fired upon the revisionist and his servant-Jakir, however they could manage to save their life. It was further stated that those four respond­ents/accused persons beaten Gajraj Singh -badly and also damaged the constructed wall and they also fired on the wheel of Tractor. After that the complainant-revi­sionist Ravi Chaudhary informed the po­lice on telephone. Then the police came on the place of occurrence and then Gajraj Singh was taken to the hospital. The complainant has also lodged the FIR on the same day i.e. on 5.7.2003 at 4:45 P.M. at P.S. Jwalapur, Distt. Hardwar and the case was accordingly registered against the accused persons. Injured Gajraj Singh was medically examined in the Govt. Hospital, Jwalapur and in the supplementary report, fracture was found in his 10th rib right side. After the inves­tigation of the above-said incident, the In­vestigating Officer submitted the final re­port. On the final report submitted by the I.O., the complainant/revisionist Ravi Chaudhary filed a protest petition. On that protest petition, learned Judicial Magis­trate, Hardwar after hearing and appreci­ating the material on record, vide his judg­ment and order dated 01,09.2005 sum­moned the respondents-Sanjay Paliwal, Pradeep Paliwal, Rajiv Paliwal and Keshwendra Kripal Paliwal @ Bitoo un­der Sections 147/148/323/325/427 IPC. Against the said judgment and order dated 1.9.2005, respondents preferred a crimi­nal revision before Sessions Judge, Hardwar. Learned Sessions Judge, Hardwar vide his judgment and order dated 3.6.2006 allowed the said revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 1.9.2005 passed by Judicial Mag­istrate. Hardwar. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 3.6:2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Hardwar, the revisionist/complainant has filed the present revision before this Court.
(3.) SRI S.K. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate has solely argued that the respondents were summoned by the Judicial Magis­trate, Hardwar vide his judgment and or­der dated 1.9.2005 on the basis of pro­test petition filed by the revisionist. But in the revision filed before Sessions Judge, the revisionist/complainant-Ravi Chaudhary was not made party and even he had got no information about the fil­ing of the said revision. Hence, the order passed by Sessions Judge is against law and principles of natural justice. In sup­port of this argument, he has cited a judg­ment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mosiruddin Munshi Vs. Mohd. Siraj and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 434 and relied on para 4 which is reproduced as under :- “4. We have heard the learned coun­sel for the parties and gone through the record. The broad facts stated above have not been denied. It, there­fore, stands uncontroverted that the proceedings against the respondent-accused had been quashed without notice to the appellant, who was the original complainant. We are, there­fore, of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge impugned before us must be set aside and we order accordingly. We also remit the case to the High Court for a fresh de­cision in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed.” ;