Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 497 in Kaushalya And Anr vs Pushpa Devi on 1 December, 2015Matching Fragments
Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order 23.03.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that vide order dated 02.11.2011, petitioner No.2 was ordered to be summoned to face the trial qua offence punishable under Section 497 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short). So far as Petitioner No.1 is concerned, he was ordered to be discharged. Aggrieved against the said order, respondent preferred a revision petition. However, vide impugned order dated 23.03.2013, the revision petition filed by the respondent was allowed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed CRM-M-11344-2014 [2] *** integrity of this document reliance on "Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Others 2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 689, wherein it was held as under:-
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
In the present case, facts are not in dispute. Respondent had filed a complaint against the petitioner under Sections 497, 302, 201/34 IPC. Vide order dated 02.11.2011, the trial Court ordered to summon the petitioner No.2 qua commission of offence punishable under Section 497 IPC. So far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, she was ordered to be discharged. Respondent preferred a revision petition against the order dated 02.11.2011. Service of petitioners was dispensed with by the court of revision as they had not put in appearance before the trial Court before passing of the summoning order. The Court of Revision allowed the revision CRM-M-11344-2014 [4] *** integrity of this document petition and ordered that the petitioners be summoned to face the trial. Court of revision was required to issue notice to the petitioner before setting aside the order passed by the trial Court. As the complaint was dismissed, a valuable right had accrued to the petitioners, therefore, petitioners were required to be heard before an adverse order was passed against them.