Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 834 (RAJ)

Bharat Lal Urf Bharto v. State of Rajasthan

2019-03-13

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant misc. petition and revision petition arise out of common proceedings in the trial court and are hence, being decided together. 3. The facts in brief are that the respondent-complainant Vedram lodged an FIR No. 267/2010 at the Police Station Deeg against the accused petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A, 302, 304B IPC. The investigating officer, after conducting investigation of the matter, submitted a negative final report in the Court of the learned ACJM, Deeg. The learned trial court, heard the complainant and proceeded to accept the negative final report by order dated 11.4.2011. The complainant Vedram assailed the said order by filing a revision without impleading the proposed accused as party therein. The learned Additional Session Judge No. 1, Deeg, decided the revision by order dated 07.06.2011 and without providing opportunity of hearing to the accused, remanded the matter to the trial court to pass a fresh order on the negative final report after hearing the complainant. The learned trial court, upon remand, took cognizance against the accused by order dated 14.07.2011. The accused unsuccessfully challenged the said order dated 14.07.2011 by way of revision which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg, Bharatpur by order dated 06.09.2011. The accused-petitioners have assailed both these sets of proceedings by filing Revision No. 815/2011 and Misc. Petition No. 3415/2011. 4. The fervent contention of Shri Gupta and Shri Sinsinwar, Advocates representing the accused petitioners in these two petitions, is that the order dated 07.06.2011 passed by the revisional court whereby, the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration, is absolutely illegal inasmuch as the accused, who, by virtue of acceptance of the final report became necessary parties and were required to be heard in the matter by virtue of Section 398 Cr.P.C., were not made party in the Revision No. 18/2011 and thus, order dated 07.06.2011 cannot be sustained as being grossly illegal and as having been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. They further urged that if the order dated 7.6.2011 is quashed, by cascading impact thereof, the subsequent order taking cognizance would become otiose. They further urged that if the order dated 7.6.2011 is quashed, by cascading impact thereof, the subsequent order taking cognizance would become otiose. Thus, they implored the Court to accept both these petitions and urged that the matter should be remanded to the Additional Session Judge No. 1, Deeg, Bharatpur for reconsidering Revision No. 18/2011 filed by the complainant after providing opportunity of hearing to the accused petitioners. 5. Shri Tatia, learned counsel representing the respondent complainant, is not in a position to dispute the fact that as per the plain reading of Section 398 Cr.P.C., the accused were required to be impleaded as party respondents in Revision No. 18/2011 which was submitted by the complainant against the order accepting final report. 6. In this view of the matter and, considering the mandatory requirements of Section 398 Cr.P.C., manifestly, the order dated 7.6.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg, Bharatpur without hearing the proposed accused, cannot be sustained. Thus, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg, Bharatpur who shall restore the revision to its original number and decide the same after providing opportunity of hearing to the complainant revisionist as well as accused petitioners. The parties shall appear in the revisional court on 15.4.2019. The revisional court shall hear and decide the revision within 30 days thereafter. In view of the fact that order dated 07.06.2011 has been quashed by this Court, manifestly, the subsequent order dated 14.07.2011 passed by ACJM, Deeg taking cognizance against the accused and the order dated 06.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg, Bharatpur rejecting the revision of the petitioners against the said order can be deemed to have been struck down automatically. 7. Both the petitions are allowed in these terms. 8. A copy of this order be placed in each file.