Heard Sri A. P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 27.04.2009 passed in Criminal Case No.652 of 2009 (Madan Pal vs. Ram Laretey) arising out of Crime No.355 of 2006 under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 382, 323, 504, 506, 427 Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, P.S. Harpalpur, District Hardoi as well as the order dated 22.08.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No.76 of 2008 (Madan Pal vs. State of U.P.).
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Magistrate rejected the final report and took cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) I.P.C. and directed the case to proceed as complaint case. The order was challenged by the complainant before the learned revisional court in which the applicants, in favour of whom a valuable right had accrued, were not made parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha Versus Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Limited and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 363 wherein it has held that in view of the provisions of Section 401 (2) Cr.P.C. the accused persons should have been heard before passing any order by the learned revisional court.
Learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State has not contradicted the submissions as advanced by the learned Senior Counsel.
In the instant case, the learned court below has passed the order without hearing the accused persons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Sundarrajan and others vs. R. Vidhya Sekar reported in (2004)13 SCC 472 held as under:-
"5. In our opinion, this order of the High Court is ex facie unsustainable in law by not giving an opportunity to the appellant herein to defend his case that the learned Judge violated all principles of natural justice as also the requirement of law of hearing a party before passing an adverse order.
6. We have, therefore, no hesitation in allowing this appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and remanding the matter to the High Court to issue proper notice to the appellant herein who is the respondent in the criminal revision petition before it and afford him a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to pass appropriate orders. The appeal is allowed."
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and the settled proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha and P. Sundarrajan and others (supra), this Court holds that the learned Sessions Judge patently erred in law in not hearing the petitioners either personally or by the pleader in his defence while passing the impugned order dated 22.08.2008 and thus the order impugned is patently violative of Section 401 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order dated 27.04.2009 passed in Criminal Case No.652 of 2009 (Madan Pal vs. Ram Laretey) arising out of Crime No.355 of 2006 under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 382, 323, 504, 506, 427 Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, P.S. Harpalpur, District Hardoi as well as the order dated 22.08.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No.76 of 2008 (Madan Pal vs. State of U.P.) are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the learned Sessions Judge to decide the revision after hearing both the parties.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 VNP/-