Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 616 (RAJ)

Hemant Sindhi v. State of Rajasthan

2019-02-21

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The instant revision petition has been filed against the order dated 20.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar whereby the learned revisional court while allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 2-complainant set aside the order dated 26.08.2016 accepting negative final report submitted by the Police and remanded the matter back to the learned Judicial Magistrate with a direction to decide the case afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 2-complainant. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court after following due process of law issued notice to the respondent No. 2-Complainant but despite service the respondent No. 2 failed to appear before the trial court and in these circumstances, the learned trial court rightly passed by the order impugned of accepting the negative final report. But the learned revisional court without considering the aforesaid fact and without assigning any cogent reason, has erroneously remanded the matter back to the trial court for passing the order afresh. The order impugned is per-se illegal and therefore the same deserves to be set aside. 3. Counsel for the respondent No. 2-complainant has supported the order impugned of remand and submitted that the learned trial court without hearing the respondent No. 2-complainant has mechanically accepted the negative final report submitted by the Police. The learned revisional court has rightly remanded the matter back to the trial court for passing a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No2- complainant. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 5. After registration of the FIR against the petitioner, the Police investigated the matter and submitted a negative final report before the trial court. The respondent No. 2-complainant was summoned by the trial court but he failed to appear and the trial court passed the order dated 26.08.2016 without hearing the respondent No. 2-complainant and accepted the final report. The learned revisional court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 2-complainant and remanded the matter back to the trial court only with a direction to decide the case afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 2-complainant. In my considered opinion, there is no perversity and infirmity in the order of the revisional court. 6. In my considered opinion, there is no perversity and infirmity in the order of the revisional court. 6. The revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The trial court is directed to decide the case afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 2-complainant. 7. The record of the trial court be sent back immediately.