Judgment:
Crl.
Misc.
No.M11214of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl.
Misc.
No.M11214of 2014 Date of decision: 09.05.2014 Partap Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana etc.......Respondents Coram: Hon'ble MRS.Justice Rekha Mittal -.- Present: Mr.Virendner Pratap Singh, Advocate for Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Loveleen Dhaliwal Singla, DAG, Haryana -.- 1.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2.
To be referred to the Reporter or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Rekha Mittal, J.
The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code') has been preferred seeking quashing of order dated 13.06.2013 (Annexure P7).passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby order dated 12.04.2012 (Annexure P5).passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assandh, dismissing the application under Section 319 of the Code fild by respondent No.2, has been set aside.
The sole submission made by counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain as the revision petition against order dated 12.04.2012 passed in favour of the petitioner has been allowed by the revisional Court, without providing an opportunity of being Bimbra Mohan Lal 2014.05.13 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Misc.
No.M11214of 2014 2 heard to the petitioner.
In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Manharibahi Muljibhai Kakadia and another v.
Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai and others', 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 689 and Mohit alias Sonu and another v.
State of U.P.and another, 2013(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 673.
Counsel for respondent No.2 is fair enough to concede that in view of settled proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity of being heard by the revisional Court before disposing of the revision petition preferred by respondent No.2 assailing order dated 12.04.2012, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assandh.
In view of the above, the petition is allowed, impugned order dated 13.06.2013 (Annexure P7).passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the revisional Court for consideration afresh, after notice to the persons sought to be summoned as additional accused in regard to whom, the application filed by the prosecution was dismissed by the learned trial Court.
(Rekha Mittal) Judge 09.05.2014 mohan Bimbra Mohan Lal 2014.05.13 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh