Punjab-Haryana High Court
Des Raj Garg vs Ramesh Verma on 11 March, 2014
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
(223) CRR No.1795 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.1795 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: March 11, 2014.
Des Raj Garg ...Petitioner.
Versus
Ramesh Verma ...Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR
KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate,
for the respondent.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
A complaint was presented by complainant-respondent before SSP, Panipat, for registration of case against the petitioner, Des Raj Garg, and his wife, Meena Garg, whereupon investigation was conducted by the Economic Cell, Panipat, and it was recommended that FIR be registered against the petitioner and his wife. Accordingly, FIR No.1098 dated 08.09.2011, under Sections 420, 406 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station, City, Panipat, against the petitioner and his wife-Meena Garg. However, after conducting thorough investigation, SHO, Police Station City Panipat, filed cancellation report in the Court of learned Area Judicial Magistrate. Aggrieved against the same, the complainant-respondent filed a protest petition-cum-complaint against the Malik Ramesh 2014.03.18 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (223) CRR No.1795 of 2013 (O&M) 2 petitioner and his wife Meena Garg alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, IPC. After recording preliminary evidence of the respondent-complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat, vide order dated 06.02.2013, dismissed the complaint qua accused No. 2-Meena Garg, wife of the petitioner; whereas the petitioner was ordered to be summoned for commission of the offence punishable under Section 420, IPC. Dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal of the complaint qua accused No. 2-Meena Garg and summoning of the petitioner only for commission of the offence punishable under Section 420, IPC, the respondent- complainant filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Court of Session at Panipat. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide impugned order dated 18.04.2013, upheld the order dated 06.02.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat, dismissing the complaint/protest petition qua accused No. 2-Meena Garg, wife of the petitioner, and petitioner-Des Raj Garg was ordered to be summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 467, 467 and 471, IPC, in addition to Section 420, IPC, for which he had already been ordered to be summoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat. Challenging the order dated 18.04.2013, present petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to the effect that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, while deciding the criminal revision petition filed by the respondent-complainant and, as such, Malik Ramesh 2014.03.18 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (223) CRR No.1795 of 2013 (O&M) 3 it amounts to non-compliance of the provisions contained in Sections 398 and 401, Cr.P.C. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others, 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 689.
Learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant very fairly concedes that before deciding the criminal revision petition, the learned revisional Court should have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner and, as such, the impugned order is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia (supra). He further submits that in the spirit of the above judgment, let the matter be remitted to the learned revisional Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, for deciding the revision petition afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also agreed to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant.
Heard.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the ratio of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia (supra), the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.04.2013 is hereby set aside qua the petitioner only and the matter is remitted to the board of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, for deciding the criminal Malik Ramesh 2014.03.18 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (223) CRR No.1795 of 2013 (O&M) 4 revision petition filed by the respondent-complainant afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law, preferentially and preferably within four months from the date of passing of this order.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
March 11, 2014 JUDGE
Ramesh-M
Malik Ramesh
2014.03.18 11:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh