Bhudev Sharma and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Alok Singh, J.—Complaint filed by respondent No. 2 herein for the offence punishable u/s 406 IPC was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee vide order dated 31.03.2010. Feeling aggrieved, complainant preferred revision u/s 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Undisputedly, accused/petitioners herein were not served and heard by the revisional court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, having heard, counsel for the complainant and District Government Counsel, vide judgment dated 28.07.2011, allowed the revision, setting aside the dismissal order and case was remitted to the learned Magistrate to pass order afresh. Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Another Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Others, has held that in a revision against the dismissal of the complaint, accused must be impleaded and heard by the revisional court. As observed herein before, petitioners were neither served nor heard by revisional court and revision was allowed in the absence of present petitioners, therefore judgment passed by the revisional court dated 28.07.2011 and consequential summoning order dated 13.07.2011, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, do not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently present petition is allowed. Order dated 13.09.2011, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in Complaint Case No. 5564 of 2011 as well as judgment dated 28.07.2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/IIIrd FTC, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 134 of 2010 are hereby quashed. Revision stands restored on the file of revisional court. Parties are directed to appear before the revisional court on 30.07.2013. Revisional court, thereafter, shall decide the revision after hearing both the parties at its own merit, in accordance with law, without any undue delay.