Patna High Court - Orders
Sukdeo Mahto & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 April, 2012
Author: Rajendra Kumar Mishra
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.10449 of 2008
======================================================
1. Sukdeo Mahto son of Ramadhar Mahto.
2. Suner Deo Mahto @ Sunder Deo Mahto.
3. Shambhu Mahto.
Both are sons of Suk Deo Mahto, resident of Kalabarahaba, P.S.-
Kotwa, District-Motihari, East Champaran.
4. Subhash Kumar @ Subhash Mahto, son of Jagdish Mahto, resident
of Village-Balras Tola, Pureniya, P.S.-Kalayannpur, District-East
Champaran, Motihari.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. Lalita Devi wife of Gagan Deo Prasad, daughter of Lagan Mahto,
resident of Village-Beli SArai (Sadar Hospital Compund), P.S.-
Motihari Town, District-East Champaran, Motihari.
.... .... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Vijay Shanker Shrivastava, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
11 03-04-2012Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the order dated 08.10.2007, passed in Criminal Revision No. 486/48 of 2005/05 by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Motihari, allowing the aforesaid criminal revision, preferred by the complainant/opposite party no. 2, Lalita Devi against the order dated 06.10.2005, passed in Complaint Case No. 1022 of 2005 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Motihari, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10449 of 2008 (11) dt.03-04-201 2/42 summoning only accused Gagan Deo Prasad, out of six accused named in the complaint petition, on enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding prima facie case under Section 498-A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It appears that the opposite party no. 2, Lalita Devi, filed the Complaint Case No. 1022-C of 2005 against her husband, Gagan Deo Prasad and Nilu Devi, second wife of Gagan Deo Prasad, and the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498-A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. On enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Motihari, summoned only accused Gagan Deo Prasad, husband of the complainant/opposite party no. 2, finding prima facie case under Sections 498-A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code through order dated 06.10.2005. The complainant/opposite party no. 2 aggrieved with the said order, preferred Criminal Revision No. 486/48 of 2005/05 in the court of Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari and the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 08.10.2007, allowed the aforesaid criminal revision by setting aside the summoning order dated 06.10.2005, with a direction to the court below to pass a fresh order in light of the observation made herein on the basis of the evidence available on record. The aforesaid order dated 08.10.2007, passed in Criminal Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10449 of 2008 (11) dt.03-04-201 3/42 Revision No. 484 of 2005 has been impugned by the petitioners before this Court.
4. The sole submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners is that while the petitioners were made opposite parties in Criminal Revision No. 486 of 2005 but without service of the notice and without hearing the petitioners, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the aforesaid criminal revision, as preferred by the opposite party no no.2, only on the basis of appearance of Gagan Deo Prasad, husband of the complainant/opposite party no.2, who was figured in the array of opposite parties in the criminal revision.
5. It appears from Annexure-5 series, which is the photocopy of the order-sheets of Criminal Revision No. 486 of 2005 that on 04.05.2006, Gagan Deo Prasad, husband of the complainant/revisionist/opposite party no. 2, appeared while he was not made as opposite party in the criminal revision and the record was fixed for 15.05.2006, for service report of notice, but thereafter without report of the service of the notices on the opposite parties/petitioners, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on hearing the learned counsel for complainant/revisionist/opposite party no. 2, Lalita Devi, allowed the criminal revision. As such, the impugned order has been Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10449 of 2008 (11) dt.03-04-201 4/42 passed behind the petitioners, who were made opposite parties in the criminal revision. As such, the impugned order is bad in law.
6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 08.10.2007, passed in Criminal Revision No. 486 of 2005, by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Motihari is hereby quashed and this application is allowed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to pass a fresh order in Criminal Revision No. 486 of 2005, in accordance with law after hearing the petitioners, who are opposite parties in revision petition.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) Safik/-