Judgment:
CRM-M-34004-2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34004-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 12, 2014 Gopal Singh Judge and others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.K.S.Pannu, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1.
Mr.Vikas Bahl, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Arjun Kundra, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
CRM Nos.4565-66 of 2014 The criminal miscellaneous applications are allowed.
The petitioners are exempted from filing certified copies of Annexures P-14 to P-16 and the same are taken on record.
The Registry is directed to place the documents at proper place of the paper book.
CRM-M-34004-2012 A complaint alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420, IPC, was presented by Kapoor Prashant 2014.02.18 13:39 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRM-M-34004-2012 (O&M) 2 respondent No.2-complainant, Gurdial Singh, against the petitioners and after completing the formalities as enshrined under Sections 200 to 203, Cr.P.C., the complaint filed by respondent No.2-complainant was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, vide order dated 10.8.2009.
Dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal of the complaint, respondent No.2-complainant filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Court of Session at Kapurthala (Annexure P-7).The same was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide order dated 21.5.2012, whereby the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, was set aside and the matter was remitted to the learned Trial Court for passing a fresh order after considering the preliminary evidence led by respondent No.2-complainant.
Challenging the order dated 21.5.2012, present petition was filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his arguments to the effect that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of hearing by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, while deciding the criminal revision petition filed by respondent No.2-complainant and, as such, it amounts to non- compliance of the provisions contained in Sections 398 and 401, Cr.P.C.In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another v.
Shaileshbhai Kapoor Prashant 2014.02.18 13:39 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRM-M-34004-2012 (O&M) 3 Mohanbhai Patel and otheRs.2012 (4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 689.
Learned senior counsel representing respondent No.2- complainant, on instructions from respondent No.2, who is present in the Court, very fairly concedes that before deciding the criminal revision petition, the learned revisional Court should have afforded an opportunity to the petitioners and, as such, the impugned order is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia (supra).He further submits that in the spirit of the above judgment, let the matter be remitted to the learned revisional Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, for deciding the revision petition afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioneRs.Learned counsel for the petitioners has also agreed to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for respondent No.2-complainant.
Heard.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the ratio of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia (supra).the present petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 21.5.2012 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the board of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, for deciding the criminal revision petition filed by Kapoor Prashant 2014.02.18 13:39 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRM-M-34004-2012 (O&M) 4 respondent No.2-complainant afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law.
Since the matter is old one, therefore, it is expected that the learned Court below will give preference to the revision petition for decision.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) February 12, 2014 JUDGE Pkapoor Kapoor Prashant 2014.02.18 13:39 I attest to the accuracy of this order