Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) - By way of this misc. petition, the accused petitioner Rafique Mohd. has approached this Court seeking recalling of the order dated 23.4.2015 passed by this Court in Cr. Revision Petition No. 374/2015.
(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the misc. petition are noted hereinbelow:- The respondent Karan Singh Chundawat filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the present petitioner in the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, N.I.Act Cases No. 1, Bhilwara. The matter was going on before the learned trial court at the final stage. On 12.4.2014 the parties appeared before the trial court with a proposal of compromise. In terms of the proposed compromise, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid by the accused to the complainant in the Court on the very same day whereas the remaining amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was to be paid on 16.4.2014. The accused claims that the amount was paid to the complainant in presence of witnesses Kalu Khan and Safruddin on 16.4.2014. It appears that the complainant denies the said claim of the accused that the remaining amount had been paid to him and thus the compromise could not be carried to its logical conclusion. Thereupon, the accused moved an application before the trial court on 28.5.2014 for summoning the aforesaid two witnesses in defence so as to prove that the remaining amount in terms of the comrpomise had been paid to the complainant. The trial court, rejected the application submitted by the petitioner by order dated 17.9.2014. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a revision which was decided by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Bhilwara. The learned Revisional Court, after hearing both the parties allowed the revision by order dated 15.12.2014 and set aside the order passed by the learned trial court and directed the trial court to summon the defence witness in terms of the prayer made in the application submitted by the accused. The said order passed by the Revisional Court was assailed by the complainant by filing Revision Petition No. 374/2015. The revision was listed before this Court on 6.4.2015 on which date, no-one appeared on behalf of the revisionist. The revision was then taken up by the Court on 23.4.2015 on which date the same was allowed after hearing the counsel for the petitioner complainant Karan Singh Chundawat and the learned P.P. The petitioner Rafique Mohd. was impleaded as a party respondent to the revision but no notice was ever issued to him. He has now approached this Court by way of the misc. petition for recalling the order dated 23.4.2015 and for fresh hearing of the revision no. 374/2015.
(3.) Mr. Udawat, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 complainant Karan Singh is not in a position to dispute the fact that the Revision No. 374/2014 was filed against the order dated 15.12.2014 passed by the Sessions Court accepting the revision filed by the accused Rafique Mohd., and therefore, it was essential to hear him in the revision preferred by the complainant against that order. No such opportunity of hearing was admittedly provided to the accused petitioner.;