Allahabad High Court
Akhilesh Tripathi & Ors. vs State Of U.P. & Another on 15 June, 2010
Author: Yogendra Kumar Sangal
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Sangal
Court No. - 10
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2712 of 2010
Petitioner :- Akhilesh Tripathi & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Shiwa Kant Tewari
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Reserved
Hon'ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing/ setting aside the order dated 18.3.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 14, in Criminal Revision No. 299 of 2009 Lucknow in Suraj Lal Vs.State of U.P. and others.
An application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C was moved by the respondent No. 2 saying that a cognizable offence has been committed by the petitioners. On this application, learned Magistrate in place of directions to the police of the P.S. concerned ordered for registering the case as complaint case and asked the applicant to adduce his evidence under sections 200-202 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by this order, a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge. By the impugned order, learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order of learned Magistrate and directed the trial court to decide the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C afresh in the light of the observations made in the order.
Aggrieved by this order, this petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for petitioners relying on the decision of the apex court in the matter of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha Vs. Shivam Sunderam Promoters Private Limited and another, reported in (2009) 1 SCC ( Crl) , 801 argued revisionists were not joined as party in the revision before the learned Sessions Judge. Only State was made party. Without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without issuing notice to them, learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order. Principle of natural justice and also procedure were not followed by the learned Sessions Judge.Section 401 (2) Cr.P.C provides for opportunity of hearing to the accused or any other person who may be prejudiced by the order.
Hearing of respondent No. 2 is required in the matter. Issue notice to respondent No. 2 to file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List immediately thereafter before the appropriate Bench.
In the meantime respondent No. 1 may also file counter affidavit.
In the meantime proceedings of Cr. Case pending before Magistrate under the impugned order of Sessions Judge shall remain stayed.
Steps be taken within seven days.
Order Date :- 15.6.2010 R.P/