Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition (cr.) has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 18.02.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2001 by which the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 22.05.1999 by which the final form submitted by the police was accepted and the C.J.M. was directed to pass a fresh order after perusing the case diary and after hearing the informant. Further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 29.08.2002 by which the learned C.J.M. (Incharge), Palamau at Daltonganj has taken cognizance against the petitioner and directed him to face trial for the offences punishable under Section 413 & 414 of the Indian Penal Code and this order was passed by the C.J.M. (Incharge) after the matter was remanded back with a direction to pass appropriate order. Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 10.09.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Criminal Revision No. 68/2002 by which the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the order of cognizance dated 29.08.2002 passed by the learned C.J.M. (Incharge), Palamau at Daltonganj.
(2.) FACTS behind filing of this writ application are that one Arun Kumar Mishra has lodged information with Bishrampur Police Station within the District of Palamau that five idols have been stolen by unknown persons from Thakurbari. On the basis of information so lodged, Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 20/1996 dated 25.02.1996 under Sections 457/380 I.P.C. against unknown was registered and investigation was carried out. In absence of definite clue, final report was submitted on 4.1.1997 and it was accordingly accepted by the then learned Magistrate. After about one week one Raghu Thakur was arrested on 12.01.1997 and he gave his extra judicial confession before the villagers. On the basis of that confession, other accused, namely, Alakh Singh, Dwarika Saw and Vijay Kumar Soni were apprehended. In the confessional statement, name of the writ petitioner was also transpired but he could not be apprehended. On 12.3.1997 the police submitted supplementary final form against the aforesaid four persons namely, Raghu Thakur, Alakh Singh, Dwarika Saw and Vijay Kumar Soni under Sections 457/380/411/414 of the Indian Penal Code, keeping the investigation open against the writ petitioner. Those four persons were put on trial and they were accordingly convicted. During pendency of that trial, an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was also filed to summon the writ petitioner but it was then refused. The police has submitted final form No. 2/1999 dated 26.4.1999 in respect of the petitioner and it was presented before the learned C.J.M. on 18.5.1999. Just after three days on 22.5.1999 aforesaid final form filed against the petitioner was accepted and that order was challenged by respondent no. 2 vide Criminal Revision No. 53/2001. The revision was accordingly allowed vide order dated 18.2.2002 and the matter was remanded back to the Court of learned C.J.M. to pass fresh and appropriate order after going through the case diary and also after hearing the informant or the A.P.P. In view of the direction given by the learned Sessions Judge, the C.J.M. (Incharge) vide order dated 29.08.2002 took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 413 & 414 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to issue non -bailable warrant against him for appearance. The aforesaid order dated 29.08.2002 was challenged by the petitioner by filing Criminal Revision No. 68/2002 but it was dismissed in limine by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 29.08.2002. Thereafter the petitioner filed present writ petition i.e. W.P. (Cr.) No. 284/2002 challenging the orders aforesaid but he did not get favourable order by this Court and this Court by order dated 28.3.2006 dismissed the writ petition and directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner by filing Criminal Appeal No. 290/2009 corresponding to S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 3358/2006 has challenged the order dated 28.03.2006 passed by this Court and after hearing to the parties, their Lordship have pleased to set aside the aforesaid order passed by this Court and framed points (a) whether the revision petition before the Sessions Judge was maintainable at the instance of Respondent No. 2 and that too after considerable length of time? (b) whether the appellant needs to be heard?; and (c) whether the informant has to be given notice? and remitted the matter back to this Court for reconsideration.
(3.) THE parties were heard at length on the issue involved and the points framed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.;