Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 229 (UTT)

Vinita v. State of Uttarakhand

2013-05-01

ALOK SINGH

body2013
Judgment Alok Singh, J. CRMA No.568 of 2013 1. For the reasons stated in the application, counter affidavit, filed on behalf of legal heirs of respondent no.2, is taken on record. 2. CRMA No.568 of 2013 stands disposed of accordingly. C-482 No.1353 of 2012 3. Undisputedly, complaint filed by the respondent no.2, being complaint case no.753 of 2012, was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, on 3.7.2012. Against the order dated 3.7.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, refusing to summon the accused to face trial, a revision was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, being criminal revision no.168 of 2012. Learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 21.9.2012, was pleased to set aside the order of the Magistrate, and to remand the case to the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order dated 26.10.2012, thereby summoning the applicants to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. 4. Undisputedly, learned Sessions Judge, without hearing the accused, has allowed the revision filed by the complainant. It is now settled position of law that if learned Magistrate refuses to summon the accused on a private complaint, revision can be filed challenging the order of the Magistrate. However, learned revisional court must hear the accused before setting aside the order of the Magistrate and remanding the matter to the learned Magistrate. [Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others, reported in (2012) 10 S.C.C. 517 ]. 5. Since in the present case, order impugned dated 21.09.2012 was passed by the learned Sessions Judge, without hearing the accused, therefore, order does not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, present petition is allowed. Order dated 21.9.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar as well as order dated 26.10.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, are set aside. Revision is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. Learned Sessions Judge shall implead the accused/present petitioners in the revision petition as respondents and shall hear them before taking final decision in the revision. 6. Mr. Devesh Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that an appropriate application shall be moved before the Sessions Judge for the impleadment of the petitioners within ten days from today. 7. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.