Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 719 (UTT)

Sangeeta v. Kavita Devi

2013-11-12

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. The applicants, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 22.07.2009, as also the entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 296 of 2009, Kavita Devi vs Km. Sangeeta and others, under Sections 427, 147, 504, 506(2) of IPC, pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Karanprayag, District Chamoli. 2) Complainant (respondent herein) filed a criminal complaint case against the accused (applicants herein) in the court of Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Karanprayag, District Chamoli. After recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and having found a prima facie case against the accused-applicants, they were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 427, 506 of IPC, vide order dated 22.07.2009. Aggrieved against the same, accused-applicants preferred a criminal revision in the court of Sessions Judge, Chamoli, which criminal revision was dismissed for non-prosecution on 03.01.2011. Aggrieved against the impugned summoning order dated 22.07.2009 and revisional court’s order dated 03.01.2011, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed. 3) It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that since there is no provision for restoration of a criminal revision, therefore, learned Sessions Judge was required to decide the same on merits. Instead of deciding the criminal revision on merits, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution by learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for the respondent gracefully conceded to such proposition of law. 4) It will be useful to reproduce herein the provisions contained in Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The same reads as under: “397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision. Instead of deciding the criminal revision on merits, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution by learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for the respondent gracefully conceded to such proposition of law. 4) It will be useful to reproduce herein the provisions contained in Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The same reads as under: “397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision. –(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.” 5) It will also be apt to mention herein sub Section (3) of Section 399 of Cr.P.C. The same reads as under: “(3) where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court.” 6) It therefore transpires that a criminal revision cannot be dismissed by the revisional court for want of prosecution. In any case, the criminal revision is required to be decided on merits. Learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli (Revisional Court) therefore, committed a mistake in dismissing the criminal revision in default of the revisionists. The order dated 03.01.2011 is, therefore, liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Sessions Judge, Chamoli at Gopeshwar to decide the criminal revision afresh on merits after granting the parties due opportunity of hearing. The parties are directed to appear before the Revisional Court on 20.12.2013. 6) With the observations as above, application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.