Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1237 (ALL)

Bhupendra v. State of U. P.

2015-05-14

PANKAJ NAQVI

body2015
JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi,J. Heard Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the records. 2. This criminal revision is preferred against the order dated 7.4.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2015, whereby the order dated 20.1.2015 passed by CJM, Saharanpur, has been set aside and the learned Magistrate has been directed to pass fresh orders on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. It is contended that the impugned order is in the teeth of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Manhari Bhai vs. Shailesh Bhai, 2012 (10) SCC 517 and that of a Raghu Raj Singh Rousha vs. Shivam Sundaram, (2009) 2 SCC 363 followed in Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jagannath Verma vs. State of U.P, AIR 2014 All 214 that in a criminal revision, arising out of rejection of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the accused is to be heard in the revision as enshrined under Section 401 (2) Cr.P.C, else the order of the revisional court becomes vulnerable in law. 4. Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned A.G.A. in all fairness is not in a position to defend the order of the revisional court. 5. No useful purpose would be served by suspending the operation of the order of the revisional court dated 7.4.2015 and by inviting a counter affidavit as considering the present docket position of the hearing of the revisions, this revision is not likely to be heard in the near future, whereas in view of the aforesaid settled legal position, if the order dated 7.4.2015 passed by the revisional court is set aside with a direction it to hear and decide the revision afresh after putting the revisionist to notice, the ends of justice would be well served. The Court thus adopts the second alternative option. 6. Since it is not disputed from the impugned order that the order dated 7.4.2015 has been passed by the revisional court without putting the revisionist to notice, the order is in the teeth of Section 401 (2) Cr.P.C. and the aforesaid judgments, which cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 7. The revision succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 7.4.2015 passed by District Judge, Saharanpur is set aside. The Criminal Revision no. 7. The revision succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 7.4.2015 passed by District Judge, Saharanpur is set aside. The Criminal Revision no. 180 of 2015 shall stand restored to its original number and the learned revisional court shall decide the same afresh after hearing revisionist as expeditiously as possible. Learned counsel for revisionist undertakes to put in appearance of revisionist within one month in the revision, failing which this order would automatically cease to operate without further reference to the Court. 8. It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the issue on merits. Moreover, it would be open for O.P. No.2 to seek recall of this order, if so advised.