Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 227 (RAJ)

Santosh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-02-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 2. By way of the instant revision petition, the accused petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 6.9.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Revision No.106/2011 whereby, the learned revisional Court accepted the revision filed by the respondent no.2/accused and quashed and set aside the order dated 16.6.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Pali in Criminal Case No.251/2010 directing framing of charge against the accused respondent no.2 for the offence under Section 498A IPC. 3. Mr.M.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the criminal proceedings were initiated on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner in the concerned Court which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thus, the petitioner being the victim was entitled to be heard by the revisional Court while entertaining a revision filed by the accused against the order framing charge. The respondent no.2 while filing the revision did not implead the petitioner as party respondent and thus, the revisional Court went on to hear and accept the revision filed by the respondent no.2 without providing an opportunity of hearing to the complainant petitioner. He thus submits that the order passed by the revisional Court deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded to the revisional Court for fresh consideration of the revision filed by the respondent no.2. 4. Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 urges that since the police filed a charge sheet in the matter and the case was being proceeded as a State case, the revisional Court was not required to hear the complainant in the revision against the order framing charge. He thus urges that the order under challenge does not require any interference and the revision deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order as well as the record, 6. Needless to say that the criminal proceedings were initiated on the basis of private complaint filed by the petitioner. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order as well as the record, 6. Needless to say that the criminal proceedings were initiated on the basis of private complaint filed by the petitioner. Though it is true that the matter was thereafter proceeded as a State case but in any eventuality in a revision against the order framing charge where there was possibility of the entire proceedings being terminated, the complainant had a right of being heard. The revisional Court admittedly did not provide any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. In view of the above discussion, the instant revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 6.9.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali is hereby quashed and set aside. The Criminal Revision No.106/2011 shall be restored to its original number. The parties shall appear before the Sessions Judge, Pali either in person or through their counsel on 30.3.2016 where after, the Sessions Judge shall rehear the revision after providing opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.2, the petitioner as well as learned P.P. and shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 8. Record be sent back forthwith. 9. Stay petition also stands disposed of.